The Pronk Pops Show 1052, March 24, 2018, Story 1: Counting The Uncountable: Number of Illegal Aliens in United States: 2020 Census Will Include Citizenship Question — Videos — Story 2: The Forgotten American Missing Males Not In Labor Forces — Lack of Well Paying Jobs Due to Automation, Competition, Globalization and Illegal Alien Invasion of United States — Videos

Posted on March 27, 2018. Filed under: American History, Blogroll, Breaking News, Budgetary Policy, Business, Communications, Congress, Constitutional Law, Corruption, Countries, Crime, Donald J. Trump, Donald J. Trump, Donald Trump, Economics, Elections, Employment, Federal Government, Fiscal Policy, Foreign Policy, Free Trade, Freedom of Speech, Gangs, Government, Government Dependency, Government Spending, History, Homicide, House of Representatives, Housing, Human Behavior, Illegal Drugs, Illegal Immigration, Immigration, Labor Economics, Law, Legal Immigration, Life, Lying, Medicare, Monetary Policy, National Interest, News, People, Philosophy, Politics, Polls, President Trump, Progressives, Raymond Thomas Pronk, Rule of Law, Scandals, Security, Senate, Social Security, Tax Policy, Trade Policy, United States of America, Welfare Spending | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |

 Project_1

The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts

Pronk Pops Show 1052, March 27, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1051, March 26, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1050, March 23, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1049, March 22, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1048, March 21, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1047, March 20, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1046, March 19, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1045, March 8, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1044, March 7, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1043, March 6, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1042, March 1, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1041, February 28, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1040, February 27, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1039, February 26, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1038, February 23, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1037, February 22, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1036, February 21, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1035, February 16, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1034, February 15, 2018  

Pronk Pops Show 1033, February 14, 2018  

Pronk Pops Show 1032, February 13, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1031, February 12, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1030, February 9, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1028, February 7, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1027, February 2, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1026, February 1, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1025, January 31, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1024, January 30, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1023, January 29, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1022, January 26, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1021, January 25, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1020, January 24, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1019, January 18, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1018, January 17, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1017, January 16, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1016, January 10, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1015, January 9, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1014, January 8, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1013, December 13, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 1012, December 12, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 1011, December 11, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 1010, December 8, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 1009, December 7, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 1008, December 1, 2017

See the source image

See the source imageSee the source imageSee the source image

See the source image

See the source imageSee the source imageSee the source image

See the source image

See the source image

See the source image

Story 1: Counting The Uncountable: Number of Illegal Aliens in United States: 2020 Census Will Include Citizenship Question — Videos

Kobach: Why the 2020 U.S. Census needs citizenship question

Is it legal to ask citizenship question on 2020 Census?

DOJ wants to add citizenship question to 2020 census

California AG suing Trump administration over Census citizen

2020 Census Citizenship Question Raises Eyebrows

2020 Census to Include Citizenship Question

California Created Single-Party General Elections And Now They’re More Competitive Than Ever

U.S. to add citizenship question to the 2020 Census – Daily Mail

What If Republican and Democrat States Were Separate Countries?

How Many Illegal Aliens Are in the US? – Walsh – 1

Published on Oct 20, 2007

How Many Illegal Aliens Are in the US? – Walsh – 2

How Many Illegal Aliens Are in the US? – Diana Hull, part 1

Published on Oct 20, 2007

How Many Illegal Aliens Are in the US? – Diana Hull, part 2

How Many Illegal Aliens Are in the US? – Philip Romero

2015-08-10 Mark Levin on illegal immigrants statistics stealing the jobs Americans want

Immigration by the Numbers — Off the Charts

Immigration, World Poverty and Gumballs – NumbersUSA.com

Tucker: Illegal immigration is literally costing US big-time

Study says illegal immigration costs US $135 billion a year

 

Decision to add citizenship question to census draws protest

Wilbur RossThe Associated Press
FILE – In this Oct. 12, 2017, file photo, Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross appears before the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform to discuss preparing for the 2020 Census, on Capitol Hill in Washington. The Commerce Department says the 2020 U.S. Census will include a question about citizenship status. Commerce says in a press release issued Monday night that the citizenship data will help the Justice Department enforce the Voting Rights Act, which protects minority voting rights. But opponents say the question will discourage immigrants from responding to the census. (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite, File)

The 2020 U.S. Census will add a question about citizenship status, a move that brought swift condemnation from Democrats who said it would intimidate immigrants and discourage them from participating.

The population count taken every 10 years is more than an academic exercise. It’s required by the Constitution and used to determine the number of seats each state has in the House as well as how federal money is distributed to local communities. It helps communities determine where to build schools, hospitals, grocery stores and more.

Congress delegates to the commerce secretary the authority to determine census questions. Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross had until the end of March to submit the list of questions to Congress. The department said the citizenship information would help the Justice Department enforce the Voting Rights Act, which protects minority voting rights and helps prevent the unlawful dilution of the vote on the basis of race.

“Secretary Ross determined that obtaining complete and accurate information to meet this legitimate government purpose outweighed the limited potential adverse impacts,” the department said in its announcement.

A coalition of state attorneys general urged the department last month to not add such a question, saying it could lower participation among immigrants and cause a population undercount.

California Attorney General Xavier Becerra said the state will sue the Trump administration over its decision.

“We’re prepared to do what we must to protect California from a deficient Census,” he said.

Massachusetts Secretary of State William Galvin, a Democrat, told AP on Tuesday that he expected his state would also join in a lawsuit. He called the move by Ross an attempt to suppress the count in states such as Massachusetts that have large immigrant populations.

“The Constitution requires us to count every person living in the United States, not every citizen,” Galvin said.

House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi said Tuesday that adding such a question “will inject fear and distrust into vulnerable communities and cause traditionally undercounted communities to be even further under-represented, financially excluded and left behind.”

Democratic lawmakers had been bracing for the decision in recent months. They’ve held press conferences and made it a point to question Ross about his thinking during appearance at congressional hearings. Rep. Carolyn Maloney, D-N.Y., introduced legislation last week that would prohibit the commerce secretary from enacting any major operational design that had not been researched and tested for less than three years prior to the opening day of the census. The bill has nine Democratic co-sponsors, but no Republicans have signed on, demonstrating the bill’s dim prospects in the GOP-led Congress.

Some Republican lawmakers hailed the decision on Tuesday. GOP Sens. Jim Inhofe of Oklahoma, Tom Cotton of Arkansas and Ted Cruz of Texas had sent a letter to the Commerce Department asking Ross to add the question.

“It is imperative that the data gathered in the census is reliable, given the wide ranging impacts it will have on U.S. policy,” Cruz said in a press release issued by the three lawmakers. “A question on citizenship is a reasonable, commonsense addition to the census.”

The Commerce Department said that between 1820 and 1950, almost every decennial census asked a question on citizenship in some form. The Census Bureau now asks about place of birth, citizenship and year of entry on a separate survey conducted every year called the American Community Survey, sampling only a portion of the population. The citizenship data help agencies and policymakers evaluate immigration policy and understand how different immigrant groups are assimilated.

The Justice Department said in a statement it was important to restore the use of a citizenship question in the 10-year census because it’s used for redistricting purposes and the yearly survey is not the most appropriate data to use for that purpose.

“The Justice Department is committed to free and fair elections for all Americans and has sought reinstatement of the citizenship question on the Census to fulfill that commitment,” the department statement read.

Census counts are taken by mail and by workers walking neighborhoods. The Census Bureau says that the 2010 census drew a massive response, with about 74 percent of the households mailing in forms and the remaining households counted by workers in neighborhoods.

Information is only released publicly in the aggregate, although the government has the details. Whether the information would be used for immigration enforcement is an open question. In 2010, the Obama administration offered assurances that the census data would not be used for immigration purposes.

———

Associated Press writer Hope Yen contributed to this report.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory/2020-census-add-question-citizenship-status-54030706

U.S. Census – in move which brings fury from Democrats

  • Commerce Dept said that it will ask for citizenship status in the 2020 Census, the first time it has been a question since 1950 
  • The decennial census helps determine political representation in Congress, federal funding of programs and other matters 
  • But Democrats say question will stop ‘undercounted communities’ to fear taking part 
  • California Attorney General Xavier Becerra said the state will sue the Trump Administration over its decision 

The Commerce Department says the 2020 U.S. Census will include a question about citizenship status, a move that brought a swift response by the California attorney general to oppose it.

Commerce says in a press release issued Monday night that the citizenship data will help the Justice Department enforce the Voting Rights Act, which protects minority voting rights.

But opponents say the question will discourage immigrants from responding to the census.

A coalition of state attorneys general urged the Commerce Department last month to not add such a question, saying it could lower participation among immigrants and cause a population undercount.

Trump move: The 2020 Census will include a question on citizenship, his administration has decided - to the fury of Democrats led by Nancy Pelosi
Trump move: The 2020 Census will include a question on citizenship, his administration has decided - to the fury of Democrats led by Nancy Pelosi

Trump move: The 2020 Census will include a question on citizenship, his administration has decided – to the fury of Democrats led by Nancy Pelosi

The decennial census helps determine political representation in Congress, federal funding of programs and other matters.

Commerce says that between 1820 and 1950, almost every decennial census asked a question on citizenship in some form.

California Attorney General Xavier Becerra said the state will sue the Trump Administration over its decision to add a citizenship question to the 2020 Census.

‘We’re prepared to do what we must to protect California from a deficient Census,’ he said. ‘Including a citizenship question on the 2020 census is not just a bad idea – it is illegal.’

House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi also blasted the idea.

Pelosi said in a statement that it will terrify already vulnerable people and ’cause traditionally undercounted communities to be even further under-represented, financially excluded and left behind.’

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5547749/2020-census-add-question-citizenship-status.html#ixzz5AzBClFrO

Illegal Aliens: Counting the Uncountable

By James H. Walsh 
Volume 17, Number 4 (Summer 2007)
Issue theme: “How many illegal aliens are in the U.S.?”

 

 

Summary:
No exact head count exists for the ghost population of illegal aliens residing in the United States. Data compiled by the U.S. Census Bureau (USCB) and by national surveys, governmental agencies, nongovernment statistics-keeping agencies, philanthropic organizations, religious charities, and immigrant advocates are used in estimates ranging from 7 million to 20 million. This article demonstrates that this number is closer to 2 times 20 million.

 

Qui vult decipi, decipiatur.
(Let him who wishes to be deceived, be deceived.)

– Latin proverb

 

No exact head count exists for the ghost population of illegal aliens residing in the United States. Data compiled by the U.S. Census Bureau (USCB) and by national surveys, governmental agencies, nongovernment statistics-keeping agencies, philanthropic organizations, religious charities, and immigrant advocates are used in estimates ranging from 7 million to 20 million. I believe that number is closer to 2 times 20, and here is why.

Guessing the number of illegal aliens in the United States is like playing the lottery––more than a million to one that you will be right on. Government agencies each have their own methodology and thus their own estimate. Leading the list are the Census Bureau and the post-9/11 Department of Homeland Security (DHS)—an amalgamation of 22 federal agencies, including the former Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) transferred from the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) and the former Customs Service (USC) transferred from the U.S. Treasury Department. The INS and USC had the distinction of being among the most dysfunctional agencies in the U.S. Government. Added to these are other public and private prestidigitators (listed here in alphabetical order): academics, demographers, economists, environmentalists, geographers, historians, immigration advocates, journalists, labor specialists, political scientists, religious charities, sociologists, statisticians, and welfare administrators.

Not one of these “experts” has a clue as to the exact number of illegal aliens, but this does not keep them from crafting estimates to fit their own agenda. Few have ever been to the U.S.–Mexican border, where the majority of illegal aliens cross into the United States. My high-ball estimate, at least, is based on first-hand data compiled on site. During eleven years as a renegade INS Associate General Counsel, I regularly traveled the Southern Border, as it meanders 2,000 miles from the Pacific Ocean to the Gulf of Mexico. My duties took me as well to the then even less secure Northern Border with Canada, which extends through often heavily wooded wilderness.

The INS, in its stormy heyday, had a chronic problem with numbers, be it the number of illegal aliens crossing U.S. borders each year, the number of visa overstays, the number of actual, in-the-flesh deportations, or the number of criminal illegal aliens (those convicted of crimes committed in the United States, after their illegal entry).

In 1994, the INS Statistics Division published a seminal statistical work on illegal aliens. Emphasizing that the figures were estimates, the report acknowledged the assistance of the Urban Institute, the Center for Social Demographic Analysis, the State University of New York, Albany, and the New York City Planning Department. The Urban Institute contributor also worked as an INS consultant, and now is with the Pew Foundation. The major players in immigration statistics do tend to quote each other. Although the report cited the INS Nonimmigrant Information System (NIIS), it failed to mention that the 1990 NIIS records were lost during a processing error. Nevertheless, the report concluded that the actual illegal alien population residing in the United States in October 1992 was “not likely to have been higher than the estimated total of 3.4 million, because the assumption used to construct the estimates was selected deliberately to avoid underestimating the population.”

At the same time, an investigation by the U.S. Department of Justice Inspector General found INS statistics suspect and cited deliberate deception by senior INS officials tampering with immigration statistics. Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus (false in one, false in all).

The DOJ investigation agreed with audits by the Government Accounting Office (now Government Accountability Office, GAO) that an “aura of incompetence and incestuous mismanagement” permeated the INS. Over the years, GAO auditors voiced their concerns to the INS Office of the General Counsel, which was plagued by a swinging door of political appointee General Counsels. Those who pushed for accurate counts were stilled by bureaucratic estoppel, dead-end rewrites, and persistently convoluted and distorted statistics.

U.S. Border Patrol agents confided that they were told to cap apprehensions and deportations to conform to the desires of various Administrations to create at least a public perception of border control. One method was to move deportation cases from the Border States to inland districts with fewer alien cases; thus deportations would better match depressed apprehension figures. Another method was to send illegal aliens back across the border without recording the apprehensions. That strategy failed on occasions when Mexican officials refused to accept non-Mexican deportees. Not all illegal aliens crossing the Southern Border are Mexican. These “others” have their own acronym, OTM (other than Mexican), and it is among the OTMs, that the risk of terrorism is greatest. For instance, Arabs are said to be training in South America to pass as Hispanics at the Southern Border.

Unfortunately, under DHS, things have not greatly changed, other than to rename former INS and USC units and positions. The same bureaucrats, at the behest of political appointees, still supply Congress and the White House with illegal alien numbers. Just as with the old INS, the new DHS bureaucrats are adept at rationalizing their methodology and head counts.

In addition, the U.S. Census Bureau routinely undercounts and then adjusts upward total census numbers of Hispanics and other foreign nationals residing in the United States––counting only, of course, those willing to be counted. For the year 2000, the Census Bureau reported a total U.S. population count of “about 275 million” men, women, and children. When the states and local governments challenged that number as an undercount, the total was corrected upward to 281.4 million, with no clear count of illegal aliens. The Hispanic 2000 census count was 32.8 million, but on re-count the Census Bureau adjusted this number upward to 35.3 million, a 13 percent increase.

In 2001, Northeastern University, in an independent study, estimated a total of about 13 million illegal aliens in the United States, at the same time that the INS was estimating 4 million to 6 million illegal aliens. Unquestionably, the INS had a policy of underestimating the illegal alien count in keeping with its agenda traceable back to the Immigration Act of 1965, which opened the doors to Third World immigrants.

The average number of recorded apprehensions of illegal aliens in the United States now hovers at 1.2 million a year. A DHS report, Border Apprehensions: 2005, documented 1.3 million apprehensions in 2005. For the 10-year period (1996–2005), the highest number of apprehensions, 1.8 million, occurred in 2000, and the lowest, 1 million, in 2003. These DHS statistics contradict persistent statements by other government agencies that only 400,000 to 500,000 illegal aliens enter the country each year.

Journeymen Border Patrol agents (on the job five years or more) estimate that a minimum of five illegal aliens enter the United States for each apprehension, and more likely seven. That informed estimate would raise the total number of illegal aliens entering the United States in 2003 to 8 million men, women, and children.

Immigrant apologists argue that the number of illegal aliens in the United States fluctuates: many die; many return to their homeland part of each year or after many years of work; others are granted amnesty or refugee status; and others become (LPRs) and then citizens. Logic questions some of these arguments. Why would those who pay $1,500 to $15,000 to be smuggled into the United States, risking their life, return in a matter of months or years? Why would they suffer long trips confined to over-crowded boats, trucks, or other containers to stay for a few months or years? Why would people suffer possible assaults, rape, or murder to stay a few months or years? Why would Chinese illegal aliens suffer decades of indentured servitude for a few years in the United States? Most of those illegal aliens who risk their lives sneaking into the United States are here to stay.

My estimate of 38 million illegal aliens residing in the United States is calculated, however, using a conservative annual rate of entry (allowing for deaths and returns to their homelands) of three illegal aliens entering the United States for each one apprehended. My estimate includes apprehensions at the Southern Border (by far, the majority), at the Northern Border, along the Pacific, Atlantic, and Gulf of Mexico coasts, and at seaports and airports. Taking the DHS average of 1.2 million apprehensions per year and multiplying it by 3 comes to 3.6 million illegal entries per year; then multiplying that number by 10 for the 1996–2005 period, my calculations come to 36 million illegal entries into the United States. Add to this the approximately 2 million visa overstays during the same period, and the total is 38 million illegal aliens currently in the United States.

In contrast to my estimate, the head of the U.S. Border Patrol Union Local in Tucson was quoted in a May 16, 2006, Christian Science Monitor article, as estimating the total number of “illegal immigrants” (illegal aliens) in the United States, as of that date, at between 12 million and 15 million. At the same time, the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) in DHS put the number at 7 million; the Census Bureau estimated 8.7 million; and The Pew Hispanic Center estimate was 11.5 million to 12 million “unauthorized migrants” (illegal aliens) living in the United States. Depending on the source, the Christian Science Monitor concluded, illegal aliens in the United States in May 2006 numbered from “about 7 million up to 20 million or more.” At least the reporter was on the right track.

The current confusion of laws, regulations, DHS operating procedures, judicial decisions, and political agenda wreaks havoc on border enforcement. It is hardly reassuring that DHS Secretary Michael Chertoff, on February 16, 2007, stated that immigration reform would let U.S. law enforcement focus on catching criminals instead of “future housekeepers and landscapers.” The Secretary opined that security alone is not enough to permanently stop “illegal border jumpers” (illegal aliens). With internecine fighting reported on the rise between and among alien and drug smuggling Hispanic gangs, the Secretary noted that alien smugglers are in disarray, but he expects “flows to go up again as smugglers regroup.”

A Closer Look at the Numbers

Thus far in 2007, the U.S. population has passed 301 million. DHS statistics indicate that illegal aliens are the fastest growing segment, followed by their anchor babies. In addition, the number of Mexican illegal aliens apprehended is nine times the combined numbers of all other illegal aliens.

Still the number of illegal aliens is downplayed by the immigration lobby, which is a coalition of liberal-radical academics, liberal politicians, federal and state bureaucrats, labor unions, La Raza (“The Race,” the leading immigrant activist group), other immigrant activists, and religious organizations.

Aiding and abetting the immigrant coalition is the news media, which is committed to not identifying persons as illegal aliens, especially those who commit crimes. Only when forced to do so does the news media refer to illegal aliens, and then only as “undocumented persons” or “unauthorized immigrants.” The latest newspeak introduced the term “migrants” with the blessing of the New York Times, when the coalition realized that U.S. citizens were beginning to catch on that “undocumented immigrant” actually meant illegal alien. Finally U.S. taxpayers are becoming alarmed by the numbers of illegal aliens in their states, cities, and communities. Finally they are sensing that the actual numbers exceed the official estimates.

Illegal alien apologists must downplay the numbers because the actual costs to federal and state taxpayers are rising drastically each year. By undercounting illegal aliens, the costs to taxpayers for increased school enrollment and hospital treatment are never fully explained. Texas school officials are recruiting in Mexico for bilingual persons to teach in Texas public schools. The 2005–06 Texas school data showed at least 711,237 students had “limited” English-speaking skills. U.S. school districts are recruiting foreign nationals to come and teach in U.S. schools to accommodate illegal aliens.

Arizona will spend $1.2 billion to educate non-English-speaking children in 2007. The pro-immigrant rights Pew Hispanic Center estimates that one in nine Arizona students is an “illegal immigrant or the child of an illegal immigrant.” Others in Arizona suggest the number is more like one in four.

tsc_17_4_walsh_chart1.png

 

On Capitol Hill, Congressional staffers are quick to rely on governmental studies as accurate; the acceptance of flawed data is routine in immigration circles. The Pew Hispanic Center published a report on June 14, 2005, entitled,Unauthorized Migrants: Numbers and Characteristics by Jeffrey S. Passel, formerly with the Urban Institute and a former INS consultant. His report, illustrated with charts and diagrams, included a footnote in which he stated his preference for the term “unauthorized migrants”:

Various labels have been applied to this group of unauthorized migrants, including “undocumented immigrants,” “illegals,” “illegal aliens,” and “illegal immigrants.” The term “unauthorized migrant” best encompasses the population in our data, because many migrants now enter the country or work using counterfeit documents, and thus are not really “undocumented,” in the sense that they have documents, but not completely legal documents.

Perhaps in place of “illegal aliens,” Passel would prefer “not completely legal aliens.” His report, largely advo-babble (immigrant advocate babble) under the guise of research and statistical analysis, rehashes disingenuous data in an attempt to cloud illegal alien numbers and their impact. In a chapter on “Methods: Residual Estimates of Unauthorized Migrants,” he states that the “residual method has been used for several decades to measure unauthorized migration to the U.S.” and that “some of the first sound empirical estimates came from residual methodology applied to the 1980 Census. Variants of the method were used or discussed by the Census Bureau, the Panel on Immigration Statistics, the Bi-National (U.S.-Mexico) Study, and the Commission on Immigration Reform, INS, and a number of other organizations and researchers.” If incest is a crime, then these researchers are guilty––at least of quoting themselves and cross-referencing their colleagues.

A GAO report (May 9, 2005) on criminal illegal aliens compared a 2000 INS estimate of the total “unauthorized immigrant” (illegal alien) population residing in the United States at 7 million to a 2005 estimate of “about 10 million illegal aliens living in the United States.” Of the 55,322 criminal illegal aliens studied by the GAO, each averaged eight arrests––without deportation.

The new DHS has yet to correct the multitude of problems inherited from the INS and Customs. A GAO report (May 27, 2005) described the memorandum of understanding on respective duties and intelligence sharing signed by the newly formed Immigration and Customs Enforcement component (ICE) and the Customs and Border Protection component (CBP). As of May 2005, however, no mechanism was in place to track numbers and results of referrals between the two. Little has changed.

Recently experts at liberal think-tanks, such as the Brookings Institution, are commenting on the extraordinary explosion across the United States of diversity and immigration. These experts are just learning that “immigrants” (illegal aliens) are showing up in many more communities than the experts ever believed, such as Loudoun County, Virginia (an affluent suburb of Washington, D.C.), Palm Beach County, Florida; and Plainfield, Illinois. They had accepted as fact the under-reporting of illegal aliens by immigrant special interest groups, including Democrats in Congress and federal agencies. Finally the ghost population of illegal aliens is becoming visible, through its sheer numbers at the state and local level. Not only are U.S. citizens beginning to see the reality of unfettered illegal immigration in their own communities; they are beginning to feel the pinch.

Countable Snapshots

Although no exact numbers exist on illegal aliens residing in the United States, the following snapshots support my contention that the actual numbers far exceed the “official” estimates of the federal government.

On an inspection tour of the El Paso Border Patrol Sector, while interviewing an agent, I observed in the distance twelve illegal aliens dash through a split in a fence, and three Border Patrol agents give chase. The aliens spread out like a fireworks starburst; the agents apprehended three of them; and thus nine illegal aliens were on their way to mingle in El Paso or parts unknown. This snapshot, remember, was a 20-foot stretch of a 2,000-mile border.

In an immigration/civil rights case, a federal judge asked attorneys, “Do we really know how many undocumented immigrants we are talking about, in the United States?” School Board attorneys hemmed and hawed; finally one replied, “One expert told me 1,300 “undocumented students” were in the school district, and another said 7,000.” When the judge later asked the question again, attorneys answered that privacy laws and federal laws prohibited questions about citizenship.

The Hispanic population is skyrocketing in such diverse areas as Fort Myers, Florida; Charlotte, North Carolina; Indianapolis, Indiana; Las Vegas, Nevada; and Seattle, Washington. Illegal aliens make up an estimated 80 percent of the new population. In Nebraska, the number of illegal aliens is estimated at more than 50,000. Nationally, Hispanics, now the largest minority, have a higher fertility rate than other ethnic groups.

In early 2007, more than 1.6 million Hispanics were reported living in the greater Chicago area, the majority of them Mexicans and 80 percent of them illegal aliens. One of them, Elvira Arellaño, is being granted “sanctuary” in a Chicago store-front church. DHS officers have not breached this “sanctuary” to deport Arellaño once again. Having lived in Chicago for nine years, she can still not speak English. As one of the few people actually deported by the U.S. Government, she re-entered the United States without inspection and thus is subject to felony charges. The radical immigration advocates who support her “sanctuary” mean to make a mockery of U.S. laws.

In January 2007, an Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) spokeswoman estimated that 600,000 “illegal immigrants” (illegal aliens) are currently ignoring deportation orders. Illegal aliens call the written notice of a deportation order a “run letter,” and that is what they do.

Southern states have the fastest growing populations in the country. Brookings Institution demographer William Frey opined in 2006, “Immigrants are finally catching up to the fact that the South is a magnet for jobs and quality of life. They are rag-tag migrants, taking jobs created by people who come from other parts of the U.S.” Texas, Florida, Georgia, and North Carolina are among the ten most popular states with illegal aliens.

In 2005, a total of 11,400 migrants on their way to the United States took refuge in the Jesuit shelter, Casa del Migrante, in Nuevo Laredo, Mexico, across the Rio Grande from Laredo, Texas; this figure was up from 4,647 in 1999.

In Palm Beach County, Florida, in 2006, according to an immigration advocate, the Hispanic population was undercounted by 3–4 to 1, with 90 percent of them illegal aliens. Thus when the 2005 Census recorded 50,000 Hispanic residents among the population of 1.2 million, the actual count was closer to 200,000, most of them illegal.

Among illegal aliens in the United States, most are of child-bearing age. The fertility rate of immigrants, legal and illegal, compared to that of U.S. citizens is 3–4:1.

In January 2007, U.S. Treasurer Anna Escobedo Cabral stated that remittances to Mexico from the United States are a driving force of Mexico’s economic growth. In 2006, these remittances were US$23 billion, an increase of 15 percent from remittances in 2005. Some of these remittances are coming from the estimated 5,000 to 30,000 Mexicans working in New Orleans to rebuild the city.

Illegal Aliens and “Comprehensive” Immigration Reform

A history of legislative chicanery and out-right misrepresentation has fed the illegal alien crisis now being felt at federal, state, and local levels in the United States. To Congress must go the majority of blame for the some 38 million illegal aliens now residing in the United States––threatening public safety and public health, stressing school and hospital budgets, damaging the environment, and draining taxpayer pocketbooks.

The new Democrat-controlled Congress is poised to repeat past legislative mistakes. The Immigration Act of 1965 (Hart-Celler Act), as part of Lyndon Johnson’s War on Poverty, served as an open invitation to those wishing to flee Third World countries; and the 1986 Immigration and Reform Control Act (IRCA), which promised amnesty and employer sanctions, delivered little of either. Only an estimated 2.7 million illegal aliens took advantage of the IRCA (Reagan) amnesty. This low participation rate can be traced to the reluctance of illegal aliens to believe any country would be so naive as to wave in persons who had committed a crime in crossing the border. At that time, the total illegal alien population in the United States was estimated at 4 million to 6 million. The tsunami of “border jumpers” began once word spread around the world that the United States, with the passage of IRCA, was opening its borders.

In a 2005 Pew Hispanic Center report, Jeffrey Passel did make a coherent summation: “The unauthorized population [illegal aliens] has been steadily increasing in size (and possibly by large increments since the last half of the 1990s).”

Amnesty and employer sanction provisions failed to curb the flow of illegal aliens; IRCA proved to be a legislative mistake, and the present Democrat-controlled Congress is falling into the same trap, with the support of the President. As illegal alien counts rise daily, employer sanction provisions in any 2007 immigration legislation promise to be as unenforceable as those in IRCA. Just as the Reagan amnesty was followed by a new wave of emboldened illegal aliens, the same aftermath awaits “comprehensive” immigration legislation in 2007.

U.S. citizens (for the most part, we presume) elected the current Congress to pass legislation to “form a more perfect union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and Secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity” (Preamble to the U.S. Constitution, 1789).

Immigration is not the problem; the burgeoning ghost population of illegal aliens now becoming visible across the United States is. Conflicting counts of illegal aliens reflect muddled immigration policies––purposeful or not. Such policies render the nation less capable of apprehending and deporting illegal aliens (among them violent criminals and terrorists) than ever before. ■

About the author

James H. Walsh, formerly an Associate General Counsel of the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) in the United States Department of Justice, writes immigration commentary. During his INS tenure, Walsh was selected as a German Marshall Fund Scholar, traveled through Europe interviewing immigration officials, and published articles based on his findings. At INS, he worked with other federal agencies and with congressional committees on immigration matters. His assignments included consultations with foreign governments and international business concerns. He chaired a task force on Transit without Visa (TWOV), whose report identified weaknesses in pre-9/11 airport security.

Walsh has served as an Assistant U.S. Attorney (Middle District of Florida) and as a Special Trial Attorney in the U.S. Department of Justice Organized Crime Section. He chaired the Constitutional Rights Committee, General Law Section, of the American Bar Association, and served on the Editorial Board of TheFlorida Bar Journal. His articles on immigration have appeared inMigrationWorld, Social Contract, The Florida Bar Journal, and Newsmax.com.
Walsh has a B.A. in history from Spring Hill College and a J.D. from Georgetown University Law Center.

United States Census

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
United States Census
Seal of the United States Census Bureau.svg

Location(s) 4600 Silver Hill Rd.
SuitlandMaryland 20746
Country United States
Inaugurated August 2, 1790; 227 years ago
Most recent April 1, 2010
Next event 2020
Website
census.gov

The United States Census is a decennialcensus mandated by Article I, Section 2 of the United States Constitution, which states: “Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States … according to their respective Numbers … . The actual Enumeration shall be made within three Years after the first Meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent Term of ten Years.”[1][2] The United States Census Bureau (officially the Bureau of the Census, as defined in Title 13 U.S.C. § 11) is responsible for the United States Census.

The first census after the American Revolution was taken in 1790, under Secretary of StateThomas Jefferson; there have been 22 federal censuses since that time.[2] The current national census was held in 2010; the next census is scheduled for 2020 and will be largely conducted using the Internet.[3] For years between the decennial censuses, the Census Bureau issues estimates made using surveys and statistical models, in particular, the American Community Survey.

Title 13 of the United States Code governs how the Census is conducted and how its data are handled. Information is confidential as per 13 U.S.C.§ 9. Refusing or neglecting to answer the census is punishable by fines of $100, for a property or business agent to fail to provide correct names for the census is punishable by fines of $500, and for a business agent to provide false answers for the census is punishable by fines of $10,000, pursuant to 13 U.S.C.§ 221-224.

The United States Census is a population census, which is distinct from the U.S. Census of Agriculture, which is no longer the responsibility of the Census Bureau. It is also distinct from local censuses conducted by some states or local jurisdictions.

Procedure

A woman with a Hollerith pantograph punch, the keyboard is for the 1920 US Census population card

This 1940 Census publicity photo shows a census worker in Fairbanks, Alaska. The dog musher remains out of earshot to maintain confidentiality.

Decennial U.S. Census figures are based on actual counts of persons dwelling in U.S. residential structures. They include citizens, non-citizen legal residents, non-citizen long-term visitors and undocumented immigrants. The Census Bureau bases its decision about whom to count on the concept of usual residence. Usual residence, a principle established by the Census Act of 1790, is defined as the place a person lives and sleeps most of the time. The Census Bureau uses special procedures to ensure that those without conventional housing are counted; however, data from these operations are not considered as accurate as data obtained from traditional procedures.[4]

The Census also uses hot deck imputation to assign data to housing units where occupation status is unknown. This practice has effects across many areas, but is seen by some as controversial.[5] However, the practice was ruled constitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court in Utah v. Evans.

Certain American citizens living overseas are specifically excluded from being counted in the census even though they may vote. Only Americans living abroad who are “Federal employees (military and civilian) and their dependents living overseas with them” are counted. “Private U.S. citizens living abroad who are not affiliated with the Federal government (either as employees or their dependents) will not be included in the overseas counts. These overseas counts are used solely for reapportioning seats in the U. S. House of Representatives.”[6]

In the United States’ recent censuses, Census Day has been April 1.[7] However, it was previously in August, as per these instructions given to U.S. Marshals: “All the questions refer to the day when the enumeration is to commence, the first Monday in August next. Your assistants will thereby understand that they are to insert in their returns all the persons belonging to the family on the first Monday in August, even those who may be deceased at the time when they take the account; and, on the other hand, that they will not include in it infants born after that day.”[8]

Controversy

Disadvantaged minorities are statistically more likely to be undercounted. For example, the Census Bureau estimates that in 1970 over six percent of blacks went uncounted, whereas only around two percent of whites went uncounted. Democrats often argue that modern sampling techniques should be used so that more accurate and complete data can be inferred. Republicans often argue against such sampling techniques, stating the U.S. Constitution requires an “actual enumeration” for apportionment of House seats, and that political appointees would be tempted to manipulate the sampling formulas.[9]

Groups like the Prison Policy Initiative assert that the census practice of counting prisoners as residents of prisons, not their pre-incarceration addresses, leads to misleading information about racial demographics and population numbers.[10]

In 2010 Jaime Grant, then director of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force‘s Policy Institute, thought of the idea of a bright pink sticker for people to stick on their census envelope which had a form for them to check a box for either “lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender or straight ally,” which her group called “queering the census.”[11] Although the sticker was unofficial and the results were not added to the census, she and others hope the 2020 census will include such statistics.[11]

In 2015 Laverne Cox called for transgender people to be counted in the census.[12]

In March 2018 the Trump administration announced plans to include a citizenship question in the 2020 census questionnaire. The state of California is suing the Trump administration arguing that the proposed citizenship question is unconstitutional and will intimidate immigrants resulting in inaccurate data on minority communities.[13]

History

Censuses had been taken prior to the Constitution’s ratification; in the early 17th century, a census was taken in Virginia, and people were counted in nearly all of the British colonies that became the United States.

Throughout the years, the country’s needs and interests became more complex. This meant that statistics were needed to help people understand what was happening and have a basis for planning. The content of the decennial census changed accordingly. In 1810, the first inquiry on manufactures, quantity and value of products occurred; in 1840, inquiries on fisheries were added; and in 1850, the census included inquiries on social issues, such as taxation, churches, pauperism, and crime. The censuses also spread geographically, to new states and territories added to the Union, as well as to other areas under U.S. sovereignty or jurisdiction. There were so many more inquiries of all kinds in the census of 1880 that almost a full decade was needed to publish all the results. In response to this, the census was mechanized in 1890, with tabulating machines made by Herman Hollerith. This reduced the processing time to two and a half years.[14]

For the first six censuses (1790–1840), enumerators recorded only the names of the heads of household and a general demographic accounting of the remaining members of the household. Beginning in 1850, all members of the household were named on the census. The first slave schedules were also completed in 1850, with the second (and last) in 1860. Censuses of the late 19th century also included agricultural and industrial schedules to gauge the productivity of the nation’s economy. Mortality schedules (taken between 1850 and 1880) captured a snapshot of life spans and causes of death throughout the country.

The first nine censuses (1790–1870) were conducted by U.S. Marshals before the Census Bureau was created.[15] Appointed US Marshals of each judicial district hired assistant marshals to conduct the actual enumeration. The census enumerators were typically from the village or neighbourhood and often knew the residents. Before enabling self-identification on the censuses, the US Census Bureau relied on local people to have some knowledge of residents. Racial classification was made by the census enumerator in these decades, rather than by the individual.

Num Year Date Taken Population Notes
1 1790 August 2, 1790 3,929,326
2 1800 August 4, 1800 5,308,483
3 1810 August 6, 1810 7,239,881
4 1820 August 7, 1820 9,638,453
5 1830 June 1, 1830 12,866,020
6 1840 June 1, 1840 17,069,453 The census estimated the population of the United States at 17,100,000. The results were tabulated by 28 clerks in the Bureau of the Census.
7 1850 June 1, 1850 23,191,876 The 1850 census was a landmark year in American census-taking. It was the first year in which the census bureau attempted to record every member of every household, including women, children and slaves. Accordingly, the first slave schedules were produced in 1850. Prior to 1850, census records had only recorded the name of the head of the household and tabulated the other household members within given age groups.
8 1860 June 1, 1860 31,443,321 The results were tabulated by 184 clerks in the Bureau of the Census.
This was the first census where the American Indians officially were counted, but only those who had ‘renounced tribal rules’. The figure for the nation was 40,000.
9 1870 June 1, 1870 39,818,449
10 1880 June 1, 1880 50,189,209 This was the first census that permitted women to be enumerators.
11 1890 June 2, 1890
[n 1]
62,947,714 Because it was believed that the frontier region of the United States no longer existed, the tracking of westward migration was not tabulated in the 1890 census.[16] This trend prompted Frederick Jackson Turner to develop his milestone Frontier Thesis.
The 1890 census was the first to be compiled using the new tabulating machines invented by Herman Hollerith. The net effect of the many changes from the 1880 census (the larger population, the number of data items to be collected, the Census Bureau headcount, the volume of scheduled publications, and the use of Hollerith’s electromechanical tabulators) was to reduce the time required to fully process the census from eight years for the 1880 census to six years for the 1890 census.[17] The total population, of 62,947,714, was announced after only six weeks of processing (punched cards were not used for this family, or rough, count).[18][19] The public reaction to this tabulation was disbelief, as it was widely believed that the “right answer” was at least 75,000,000.[20]
This census is also notable for the fact it is one of only three for which the original data are no longer available. Almost all the population schedules were destroyed following a fire in 1921.
12 1900 June 1, 1900 76,212,168
13 1910 April 15, 1910 92,228,496
14 1920 January 1, 1920 106,021,537 This was the first census that recorded a population exceeding 100 million.
15 1930 April 1, 1930
[n 2]
122,775,046
16 1940 April 1, 1940 132,164,569 This is the most recent Census where individuals’ data have now been released to the public (by the 72-year rule.).
17 1950 April 1, 1950 150,697,361 Because of the 72-year rule, this census will be available for public inspection on April 1, 2022.
18 1960 April 1, 1960 179,323,175 Because of the 72-year rule, this census will be available for public inspection on April 1, 2032.
19 1970 April 1, 1970 203,302,031 This was the first census that recorded a population exceeding 200 million. Because of the 72-year rule, this census will be available for public inspection on April 1, 2042.
20 1980 April 1, 1980 226,545,805 Because of the 72-year rule, this census will be available for public inspection on April 1, 2052.
21 1990 April 1, 1990 248,709,873 Because of the 72-year rule, this census will be available for public inspection on April 1, 2062.
22 2000 April 1, 2000 281,421,906 Because of the 72-year rule, this census will be available for public inspection on April 1, 2072.
23 2010 April 1, 2010 308,745,538 For the first time since 1940, the 2010 Census is a short-form-only census, as the decennial long form has been replaced by the American Community Survey.
This was the first census that recorded a population exceeding 300 million. Because of the 72-year rule, this census will be available for public inspection on April 1, 2082.
  1. Jump up^ Taken one day late because June 1 was a Sunday.
  2. Jump up^ In the Alaska Territory, census-taking began on October 1, 1929.

Census regional marketing logo in Minnesota.

Respondent confidentiality

The principal purpose of the census is to divide the house seats by population. In addition, collected data are used in aggregate for statistical purposes.[21] Replies are obtained from individuals and establishments only to enable the compilation of such general statistics. The confidentiality of these replies is very important. By law, no one—neither the census takers nor any other Census Bureau employee—is permitted to reveal identifiable information about any person, household, or business. Without such protections, those living without documentation in the United States would be deterred from submitting census data.

By law (Pub.L. 95–416, 92 Stat.915, enacted October 5, 1978), individual census records are sealed for 72 years,[22] a number chosen in 1952[23] as slightly higher than the average female life expectancy, 71.6.[24] The individual census data most recently released to the public is the 1940 census, released on April 2, 2012. Aggregate census data are released when available.

Historical FBI use of data

Under the administration of President Franklin D. Roosevelt the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), using primarily census records, compiled (1939–1941) the Custodial Detention Index (“CDI”) on citizensenemy aliens, and foreign nationals, who might be dangerous. The Second War Powers Act of 1941 repealed the legal protection of confidential census data, which was not restored until 1947. This information facilitated the internment of Japanese-Americans, following the Japaneseattack on the U.S. at Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941 and the internment of Italian- and German-Americans following the United States’ entry into World War II.[25][26]

In 1980, four FBI agents went to the Census Bureau’s Colorado Springs office with warrants to seize Census documents, but were forced to leave with nothing. Courts upheld that no agency, including the FBI, has access to Census data.[27]

Data analysis

The census records and data specific to individual respondents are not available to the public until 72 years after a given census was taken, but aggregate statistical data derived from the census are released as soon as they are available. Every census up to and including 1940 is currently available to the public and can be viewed on microfilm released by the National Archives and Records Administration, the official keeper of archived federal census records. Complete online census records can be accessed for no cost from National Archives facilities and many libraries,[28] and a growing portion of the census is freely available from non-commercial online sources.[29][30][31]

Census microdata for research purposes are available for censuses from 1850 forward through the Integrated Public Use Microdata Series (IPUMS), and scanned copies of each of the decennial census questionnaires are available online from many websites. Computerized aggregate data describing the characteristics of small geographic areas for the entire period from 1790 to 2010 are available from the National Historical Geographic Information System.

Regions and divisions

US Census Bureau Population Regions

The bureau recognizes four census regions within the United States and further organizes them into nine divisions. These regions are groupings of states that subdivide the United States for the presentation of data. They should not be construed as necessarily being thus grouped owing to any geographical, historical, or cultural bonds.

US Census Regions
Region 1: Northeast Region 2: Midwest Region 3: South Region 4: West

See also

Notes

  1. Jump up^ Constitution of the United States
  2. Jump up to:a b “Decennial Census – History – U.S. Census Bureau”. Census.gov. Retrieved 2015-03-19.
  3. Jump up^ Morello, Carol (March 28, 2013). “2020 Census will be done by Internet”. Washington Post. Retrieved 1 April 2013.
  4. Jump up^ Smith, Annetta; Smith, Denise (2001). U.S Census Bureau Census Special Reports Series CENSR/01-2. US GPO.
  5. Jump up^ Meng, Xiao-Li (1994). “Multiple-Imputation Inferences with Uncongenial Sources of Input”. Statistical Science9 (4): 538–558. doi:10.1214/ss/1177010269JSTOR 2246252.
  6. Jump up^ “Census Help”ask.census.govUnited States Census BureauArchived from the original on 17 June 2017. Retrieved 17 June 2017.
  7. Jump up^ Arendt, Britta (April 3, 2010). “Census Day has passed – still time to be counted”. Grand Rapids Herald-Review.
  8. Jump up^ “Instructions for the 1820 US census”. The Upper St. John River Valley.
  9. Jump up^ Michael Teitelbaum; Jay Winter (30 August 1998). “Why People Fight So Much About the Census”Washington Post. Retrieved 29 April 2014.
  10. Jump up^ “The Problem”. Prisoners of the Census. September 26, 2005. Retrieved 2010-03-24.
  11. Jump up to:a b “‘Queering the census’ movement aims to get single gays counted”. NY Daily News. Retrieved 2015-03-19.
  12. Jump up^ Mic. “Laverne Cox Calls for Transgender People to Be Counted Differently in Census Reporting”. Mic. Retrieved 2015-09-29.
  13. Jump up^ Gomez, Alan (March 27, 2018). “California sues Trump administration over Census citizenship question”USA Today. Retrieved March 27, 2018.
  14. Jump up^ Martin Campbell-Kelly and William Aspray, “Computer a History of the Information Machine – Second Edition”, Westview Press, pages 14-19 2004
  15. Jump up^ https://www.usmarshals.gov/history/broad_range.htm
  16. Jump up^ Porter, Robert; Gannett, Henry; Hunt, William (1895). “Progress of the Nation”, in “Report on Population of the United States at the Eleventh Census: 1890, Part 1”. Bureau of the Census. pp. xviii–xxxiv.
  17. Jump up^ Report of the Commissioner of Labor In Charge of The Eleventh Census to the Secretary of the Interior for the Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 1895. Washington, DC: United States Government Publishing Office. July 29, 1895. OCLC 867910652. Retrieved November 13, 2015. Page 9: “You may confidently look for the rapid reduction of the force of this office after the 1st of October, and the entire cessation of clerical work during the present calendar year. … The condition of the work of the Census Division and the condition of the final reports show clearly that the work of the Eleventh Census will be completed at least two years earlier than was the work of the Tenth Census.” — Carroll D. Wright, Commissioner of Labor in Charge
  18. Jump up^ “Population and Area (Historical Censuses)” (PDF). United States Census Bureau.
  19. Jump up^ Truesdell, Leon E. (1965) The Development of Punch Card Tabulation in the Bureau of the Census 1890-1940, US GPO, p.61
  20. Jump up^ Austrian, Geoffrey D. (1982) Herman Hollerith – Forgotten Giant of Information Processing, Columbia, pp.85-86
  21. Jump up^ “What is the purpose of the Census? What is the data used for?”.
  22. Jump up^ “The “72-Year Rule””. U.S. Census Bureau.
  23. Jump up^ “The 1940 Census: 72-Year-Old Secrets Revealed”.
  24. Jump up^ “Life expectancy in the USA, 1900-98”.
  25. Jump up^ Minkel, JR (2007-03-30). “Confirmed: The U.S. Census Bureau Gave Up Names of Japanese-Americans in WW II”. Scientific American. Retrieved 2009-11-02.
  26. Jump up^ El Nasser, Haya (2007-03-30). “Papers show Census role in WWII camps”USA Today. Retrieved 2009-11-02.
  27. Jump up^ Boyle, Mary (March 24, 2000). “Springs once tested Census’ confidentiality”The Gazette (Colorado Springs). Archived from the original on June 5, 2010.
  28. Jump up^ National Archives and Records Administration. “How can I search the Census Records?”. Retrieved December 13, 2008.
  29. Jump up^ “Discover your Ancestors”. Archived from the original on 2008-12-26.
  30. Jump up^ “The USGenWeb Free Census Project”. Retrieved 2010-03-24.
  31. Jump up^ “The USGenWeb Census Project”. Retrieved 2010-03-24.

Further reading

External links

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Census

List of United States immigration laws

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A number of major laws and court decisions relating to immigration procedures and enforcement have been enacted for the United States.

Year Name of legislation or case Major highlights
1790 Naturalization Act of 1790 Established the rules for naturalized citizenship, as per Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution, but placed no restrictions on immigration. Citizenship was limited to white persons, with no other restriction on non-whites.
1795 Naturalization Act of 1795 Lengthened required residency to become citizen.
1798 Naturalization Act (officially An Act to Establish a Uniform Rule of Naturalization; ch. 54, 1 Stat. 566)

Alien Friends Act (officially An Act Concerning Aliens; ch. 58, 1 Stat. 570)

Alien Enemies Act (officially An Act Respecting Alien Enemies; ch. 66, 1 Stat. 577)

  • Extended the duration of residence required for immigrants to become citizens to 14 years. Enacted June 18, 1798, with no expiration date, it was repealed in 1802.
  • Authorized the president to deport any resident immigrant considered “dangerous to the peace and safety of the United States.” It was activated June 25, 1798, with a two-year expiration date.
  • Authorized the president to apprehend and deport resident aliens if their home countries were at war with the United States of America. Enacted July 6, 1798, and providing no sunset provision, the act remains intact today as 50 U.S.C. § 21
1802 Naturalization Law of 1802
1870 Naturalization Act of 1870
  • Extended the naturalization process to “aliens of African nativity and to persons of African descent.”
  • Other non-whites were not included in this act and remained excluded from naturalization, per the Naturalization Act of 1790
1875 Page Act of 1875 (Sect. 141, 18 Stat. 477, 1873-March 1875)
  • The first federal immigration law and prohibited the entry of immigrants considered as “undesirable”
  • The law classified as “undesirable” any individual from Asia who was coming to America to be a contract laborer
  • Strengthen the ban against “coolie” laborers, by imposing a fine of up to $2,000 and maximum jail sentence of one year upon anyone who tried to bring a person from China, Japan, or any oriental country to the United States “without their free and voluntary consent, for the purpose of holding them to a term of service”
1882 Chinese Exclusion Act
  • Restricted immigration of Chinese laborers for 10 years.
  • Prohibited Chinese naturalization.
  • Provided deportation procedures for illegal Chinese.
  • Marked the birth of illegal immigration (in America).[1]
  • The Act was “a response to racism [in America] and to anxiety about threats from cheap labor [from China].” [2]
1882 Immigration Act of 1882
  • First comprehensive immigration law for the US.
  • Imposed a 50 cent head tax to fund immigration officials.
1885 Alien Contract Labor Law (Sess. II Chap. 164; 23 Stat. 332) Prohibited the importation and migration of foreigners and aliens under contract or agreement to perform labor in the United States
1891 Immigration Act of 1891
  • First comprehensive immigration laws for the US.
  • Bureau of Immigration set up in the Treasury Dept.[3]
  • Immigration Bureau directed to deport unlawful aliens.
  • Empowered “the superintendent of immigration to enforce immigration laws”.[4]
1892 Geary Act Extended and strengthened the Chinese Exclusion Act.
1898 United States v. Wong Kim Ark[5] The Supreme Court ruled that a child of Chinese descent born in the United States – whose parents at the time of his birth are subjects of the Emperor of China but who are domiciled in the United States as permanent residents; are carrying on business there; and are not employed in any diplomatic or other official capacity under the Emperor of China – is a citizen of the United States by virtue of having been born “in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” per the first clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.Several years later, in the wake of the 1906 San Francisco Earthquake and Fire, a number of Chinese immigrants who were otherwise subject to the Chinese Exclusion Act were nonetheless able to claim American citizenship by alleging they were born in San Francisco, and that their birth certificates had been destroyed along with those of everyone else who had been born in San Francisco. “Papers for fictitious children were sold in China, allowing Chinese to immigrate despite the laws.” [1]
1903 Immigration Act of 1903 (Anarchist Exclusion Act) Added four inadmissible classes: anarchists, people with epilepsy, beggars, and importers of prostitutes
1906 Naturalization Act of 1906
  • Standardized naturalization procedures
  • made some knowledge of English a requirement for citizenship
  • established the Bureau of Immigration and Naturalization
1907 Immigration Act of 1907 Restricted immigration for certain classes of disabled and diseased people
1917 Immigration Act of 1917 (Barred Zone Act) Restricted immigration from Asia by creating an “Asiatic Barred Zone” and introduced a reading test for all immigrants over sixteen years of age, with certain exceptions for children, wives, and elderly family members.
1918 Immigration Act of 1918 Expanded on the provisions of the Anarchist Exclusion Act.
1921 Emergency Quota Act
  • Limited the number of immigrants from any country to 3% of those already in the US from that country as per the 1910 census.

“An unintended consequence of the 1920s legislation was an increase in illegal immigration. Many Europeans who did not fall under the quotas migrated to Canada or Mexico, which [as Western Hemisphere nations] were not subject to national-origin quotas; [and] subsequently they slipped into the United States illegally.” [6]

1922 The Cable Act of 1922 (ch. 411, 42 Stat. 1021, “Married Women’s Independent Nationality Act”) Reversed former immigration laws regarding marriage, also known as the Married Women’s Citizenship Act or the Women’s Citizenship Act. Previously, a woman lost her US citizenship if she married a foreign man, since she assumed the citizenship of her husband, a law that did not apply to men who married foreign women. The law repealed sections 3 and 4 of the Expatriation Act of 1907.
1924 Immigration Act (Johnson-Reed Act)
  • Imposed first permanent numerical limit on immigration.
  • Began a national-origin quota system.
1924 National Origins Formula
  • Established with the Immigration Act of 1924.
  • Total annual immigration was capped at 150,000. Immigrants fit into two categories: those from quota-nations and those from non-quota nations.
  • Immigrant visas from quota-nations were restricted to the same ratio of residents from the country of origin out of 150,000 as the ratio of foreign-born nationals in the United States. The percentage out of 150,000 was the relative number of visas a particular nation received.
  • Non-quota nations, notably those contiguous to the United States only had to prove an immigrant’s residence in that country of origin for at least two years prior to emigration to the United States.
  • Laborers from Asiatic nations were excluded but exceptions existed for professionals, clergy, and students to obtain visas.
1934 Equal Nationality Act of 1934
  • Allowed foreign-born children of American mothers and alien fathers who had entered America before age 18 and lived in America for five years to apply for American citizenship for the first time.
  • Made the naturalization process quicker for American women’s alien husbands.
1930s Federal officials deported “Tens of thousands, and possibly more than 400,000, Mexicans and Mexican-Americans… Many, mostly children, were U.S. citizens.” [7] “Applications for legal admission into the United States increased following World War II — and so did illegal immigration.” [8] Some used fraudulent marriages as their method of illegal entry in the U.S. “Japanese immigration became disproportionately female, as more women left Japan as “picture brides”, betrothed to emigrant men into the U.S. whom they had never met.” [9]
1940 Nationality Act of 1940 Pertains chiefly to “Nationality at Birth,” Nationality through Naturalization,” and “Loss of Nationality”
1943 Chinese Exclusion Repeal Act of 1943 (Magnuson Act) Repealed the Chinese Exclusion Act and permitted Chinese nationals already in the country to become naturalized citizens. A quota of 105 new Chinese immigrants were allowed into America per year.
1952 Immigration and Nationality Act(McCarran-Walter Act)
  • Set a quota for aliens with skills needed in the US.
  • Increased the power of the government to deport illegal immigrants suspected of Communist sympathies.
1953 Kwong Hai Chew v. Colding344U.S.590 (1953) The Supreme Court found, “The Bill of Rights is a futile authority for the alien seeking admission for the first time to these shores. But while an alien lawfully enters and resides in this country he becomes invested with the rights guaranteed by the Constitution to all people within our borders”.
1954 Operation Wetback Immigration and Naturalization Service roundup and deportation of undocumented immigrants in selected areas of CaliforniaArizona, and Texas along the border. The U.S. Border Patrol later reported that more than 1.3 million people (a number viewed by many to be inflated and not accurate) were deported or left the U.S. voluntarily under the threat of deportation in 1954.[10]
1965 INA Amendments (Hart-Celler Act)
  • Repealed the national-origin quotas.
  • Initiated a visa system for family reunification and skills.
  • Set a quota for Western Hemisphere immigration.
  • Set a 20k country limit for Eastern Hemisphere aliens.
1966 Cuban Refugee Adjustment Act Cuban nationals who enter, or were already present in the United States, legal status.
1970s The United States saw a total number of illegal immigrants estimated at 1.1 million, or half of one percent of the United States population.
1980s
  • About 1.3 million illegal immigrants entered the US.
1982 Plyler v. Doe,[11]457U.S.202(1982) The court also stated that illegal immigrants are “within the jurisdiction” of the states in which they reside and, therefore, are under the equal protection laws of the fourteenth amendment, and stated, “We have never suggested that the class of persons who might avail themselves of the equal protection guarantee is less than coextensive with that entitled to due process. To the contrary, we have recognized [457 U.S. 202, 212] that both provisions were fashioned to protect an identical class of persons, and to reach every exercise of state authority.”
1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act
  • Started sanctions for knowingly hiring illegal aliens.
  • Provided amnesty to illegal aliens already in the US.[12]
  • Increased border enforcement.
  • Made it a crime to hire an illegal immigrant
1990s Over 5.8 million illegal immigrants entered the US in the 1990s.[13] Mexico rose to the head of the list of sending countries, followed by the Philippines, Vietnam, the Dominican Republic, and China.[14]
1990 Immigration Act
  • Increased legal immigration ceilings.
  • Created a diversity admissions category.
  • Tripled the number of visas for priority workers and professionals with U.S. job offers[citation needed][15]
1990 United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez[16] the court reiterated the finding of Kwong Hai Chew v. Colding, 344 U.S. 590, 596 (1953), “The Bill of Rights is a futile authority for the alien seeking admission for the first time to these shores. But while an alien lawfully enters and resides in this country he becomes invested with the rights guaranteed by the Constitution to all people within our borders”.Stated, “those cases in which aliens have been determined to enjoy certain constitutional rights establish only that aliens receive such protections when they have come within the territory of, and have developed substantial connections with, this country. See, e. g., Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202, 212 .”
1996 Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996(IIRaIRA)
  • Phone verification for worker authentication by employers.
  • Access to welfare benefits more difficult for legal aliens.
  • Increased border enforcement.
  • Reed Amendment attempted to deny visas to former U.S. citizens, but was never enforced[17]
1999 Rodriguez v. United States, 169 F.3d 1342, (11th Cir. 1999) Held that statutes which discriminate within the class of aliens comport with the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment (and the equal protection principles it incorporates) so long as they satisfy rational basis scrutiny.
Post 9/11/2001
  • An estimated 3.1 million immigrants entered the United States illegally between 2000 and 2005.[15]
  • From 1998 to 2001, Mexicans accounted for 68% of immigrants who entered the United States illegally. That percentage jumped to 78% for the years between 2001 and 2005, mostly due to stricter security measures that followed the September 11, 2001 Attacks upon the United States (which more efficiently prevented illegal entry from nations that did not share a land or maritime boundary with the United States).[18]
2002 Enhanced Border Security and Visa Entry Reform Act
  • Provided for more Border Patrol agents.
  • Requires that schools report foreign students attending classes.
  • Stipulates that foreign nationals in the US will be required to carry IDs with biometric technology.[19]
2005 REAL ID Act
  • Required use of IDs meeting certain security standards to enter government buildings, board planes, open bank accounts.
  • Created more restrictions on political asylum
  • Severely curtailed habeas corpus relief for immigrants
  • Increased immigration enforcement mechanisms
  • Altered judicial review
  • Established national standards for state driver licenses.
  • Cleared the way for the building of border barriers.
2012 Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals(DACADream Act
  • On June 15, 2012, the Secretary of Homeland Security announced that certain people who came to the United States as children and meet several guidelines may request consideration of deferred action for a period of two years, subject to renewal. They are also eligible for work authorization. Deferred action is a use of prosecutorial discretion to defer removal action against an individual for a certain period of time. Deferred action does not provide lawful status.[20]

See also

References

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_immigration_laws

Story 2: The Forgotten American Missing Males Not In Labor Forces — Lack of Well Paying Jobs Due to Automation, Competition, Globalization and Illegal Alien Invasion of United States — Videos

See the source image

See the source image

See the source image

See the source image

See the source imageSee the source imageSee the source image

 

Tucker: Something ominous is happening to men in America

This is why MEN are choosing to QUIT WORK!? Is it true? Tucker Carlson tells it all

Mike Rowe: Men feel emasculated by unemployment

Left’s ‘toxic masculinity’ label to blame for male crisis?

Tucker: Washington not worried about male wage crisis

Illegal immigrants, robots ganging up on men?

Activist: Illegal immigration hurts black men most

“You DESTROYED Her!” Tucker Carlson and Jordan Peterson REACTS to interview with Cathy Newman

Jordan Peterson: The Left’s new public enemy No. 1

Jordan Peterson- His Finest Moment

Tucker: Trace the decline of men to disappearance of fathers

Why men need marriage, fathers at home

Labor Force Participation

Defining the Unemployment Rate

ALL MEN MUST WATCH THIS VIDEO! Jordan Peterson and Tucker on What’s Happening to Men!

One of the main indicators affecting the Federal Reserve’s decision of whether or not to raise interest rates is the unemployment rate. With unemployment rising significantly following the global financial crisis, the Fed has been holding its benchmark interest rate close to zero. But as the unemployment rate has since declined to pre-crisis levels, the Fed is looking to tighten its rather lax monetary policy.

Yet, unemployed persons finding new jobs is not the only way in which the unemployment rate can fall; it can also fall because the unemployed are no longer looking for work and dropping out of the labor force altogether. If this is the case, then a falling unemployment rate is not necessarily an indicator of renewed economic strength, but could indicate a structural weakness within the job market.

Understanding Unemployment Statistics

In order to understand how the unemployment rate is affected, it is important to know how it is calculated. First, a number of definitions are in order.

The U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) classifies all persons over the age of 16 as “unemployed if they do not have a job, have actively looked for work in the prior 4 weeks, and are currently available for work.” The labor force is defined by the BLS as “all persons classified as employed or unemployed.” The unemployment rate is then calculated by dividing the total number of unemployed by the total labor force. (See also: How Is Unemployment Defined?).

From this we can see that there are a number of ways in which the unemployment rate could fall. First, the most obvious way is that unemployed persons find a job and become employed. Labor force participation remains the same, while the number of unemployed decreases and the number of employed increases.

The second way is that people not currently counted in the labor force become employed. It is always possible for someone not actively looking for work to accept a job offer. As this would cause an increase in the total labor force while the number of unemployed remains unaffected, the unemployment rate would fall.

Finally, the unemployment rate could fall because those who were once considered unemployed stop looking for work, and leave the labor force altogether. These people may want work and are available to work but have given up looking. As both the number of unemployed and total labor force decrease in such a situation, it may not be obvious that the unemployment rate actually goes down. But considering the most extreme example of all those currently unemployed leaving the labor force, no matter how low the total labor force falls, the unemployment rate falls to zero.

While the first two ways in which the unemployment rate could decline are positive signs of economic strength, the final way is actually more indicative of weakness. Let’s look at the U.S. situation in order to determine whether the falling unemployment rate is a sign of strength or a sign of weakness.

The U.S. Employment Situation

Ten years ago the U.S. unemployment rate was sitting at 5%. Over the next couple of years it dipped below 5%, reaching a low of 4.4%, before beginning to rise in 2008 as a result of the global financial crisis. After reaching a high of 10% in October 2009, the unemployment rate has steadily fallen and is currently sitting at 5.1%.

With the Federal Open Market Committee estimating the median value of the normal rate of unemployment at 4.9% in their September 2015 meeting, the actual unemployment rate of 5.1% is closing in on the Fed’s target of full employment. This closing in on the employment target is part of the reason for the Fed’s indications of an interest rate hike to occur sometime this year.

Yet, the above discussion on how the unemployment rate is calculated, and factors that could affect its fall, should be reason to be somewhat skeptical of the unemployment numbers. In fact, there is another trend that makes the unemployment rate numbers look a lot less rosy.

Since about the middle of the 1960s until around the year 2000, the labor force participation rate—labor force divided by the population—has risen dramatically from just under 59% to a high of 67.3%. One of the main contributors to this rise was the increasing rate at which women were joining the labor force.

But, since 2000 the rate has been trending downward. From 2004 to 2008, the downward trend did level off with the labor force participation rate hovering around 66%, but in the aftermath of the global financial crisis the downward trend sped up significantly, with the current rate sitting at 62.4%.

While many economists argue that this decrease is partly due to many of the baby boom generation starting to retire and leaving the labor force, the prime working age (25 to 54 years) labor force participation rate has also been on the decline since the year 2000 when the rate was about 84%. Following a similar trajectory as the total labor force participation rate, albeit not as steep, the prime working age labor force participation rate is currently sitting around 80.6%. Thus, retiring baby boomers cannot be the sole reason for the decline in the overall labor force participation rate.

The fact that people in their prime working age are also leaving the labor force is more of a likely indication of a weakness in the U.S. labor market. Despite the fact that a record number of employment opportunities opened up last May with 5.4 million job vacancies across the U.S., hiring remained weak. One of the best explanations is that there is a skills-to-qualifications mismatch. Thus, despite the number of people who might want a job and are available for work, if they don’t have the skills that employers are looking for, they won’t get hired. (See also: The True Unemployment Rate: U6 Vs. U3).

The Bottom Line

While it may be tempting to think that a drop in the unemployment rate is a positive sign, the very narrow definition of the officially unemployed is evidence that the interpretation of unemployment rate trends is not unambiguous. One also needs to consider the labor force participation rate. If the unemployment rate is falling because people have given up on trying to find a job rather than actually finding a job, it is hard to see how this is evidence of a strengthening economy and reason for an interest rate hike.

https://www.investopedia.com/articles/investing/103015/how-labor-force-participation-rate-affects-us-unemployment.asp

Alongside the economic growth rate and the inflation rate, the unemployment rate is one of the most widely reported and discussed economic indicators. It makes regular appearances on newspaper front pages and nightly news broadcasts because it provides a simple snapshot of the condition of the economy. Many assume that the unemployment rate is a straightforward measure of people who are out of work, but the reality is more complicated.

A Little Background

The U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) is responsible for measuring the nation’s unemployment rate by carrying out a monthly survey, known as the Current Population Survey. Each month, the BLS contacts 60,000 randomly selected households across the country and records the employment status of each person 16 years old or older. The collected data is then used to extrapolate a variety of national labor force statistics, including six different technical measures of the unemployment rate.

These six unemployment rates are labelled U-1 through U-6, respectively. For the Current Population Survey, an unemployed person is not currently working but is available to work and has actively looked for work at some point during the prior four weeks. The civilian labor force is the sum of all employed and unemployed people. A person who has no job and has not looked for a job in the last four weeks is not technically an unemployed person and is not included in the labor force.

The Technical Measures of the Unemployment Rate

The first two BLS measures of the unemployment rate, U-1 and U-2, are very narrow. The U-3 unemployment rate is the officially recognized rate of unemployment, measuring the number of unemployed people as a percentage of the labor force. Unless otherwise stated, all generic references to the employment rate in government communications and in the media refer to U-3 unemployment.

The U-4 unemployment rate is similar to the U-3 rate, but it adds in a category of people who are technically outside the labor force, known as discouraged workers. Discouraged workers desire work and have actively looked for work in the past 12 months, but they have not looked in the last four weeks because they don’t believe there is work available for them due to economic conditions or other reasons.

The U-5 unemployment rate includes everyone in the U-4 rate, in addition to any people who are available to work, willing to work and not discouraged from looking for work, but who have not looked for work in the prior four weeks for some other reason. The U-6 unemployment rate includes everyone in the U-5 rate plus any people who work part time because full-time work is not available due to economic conditions.

The True Unemployment Rate

The U-3 unemployment rate is a comparatively narrow technical measure that leaves out a whole swath of out-of-work people who are willing and able to take a job but who don’t fit the narrow BLS definition of “unemployed.” For example, a stonemason who wants to work but who has become discouraged by a lack of opportunity in the midst of a deep economic recession would not be included in U-3 unemployment. A marketing executive who is laid off at age 57 and stops scheduling new job interviews due to her experience of age discrimination would not be included in U-3 unemployment. A person who only works one six-hour shift per week because no full-time jobs are available in his area would not be included in U-3 unemployment.

In contrast to the U-3 rate, the U-6 unemployment rate includes all of these cases. Consequently, the U-6 rate is much truer to a natural, non-technical understanding of what it means to be unemployed. By capturing discouraged workers, underemployed workers and other folks who exist on the margins of the labor market, the U-6 rate provides a broad picture of the underutilization of labor in the country. In this sense, the U-6 rate is the true unemployment rate.

The True Unemployment Rate: U6 Vs. U3 | Investopedia https://www.investopedia.com/articles/investing/080415/true-unemployment-rate-u6-vs-u3.asp#ixzz5BfFclXgV

 

 

The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts Portfolio

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1048-1052

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1041-1047

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1033-1040

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1023-1032

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1017-1022

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1010-1016

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1001-1009

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 993-1000

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 984-992

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 977-983

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 970-976

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 963-969

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 955-962

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 946-954

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 938-945

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 926-937

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 916-925

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 906-915

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 889-896

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 884-888

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 878-883

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 870-877

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 864-869

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 857-863

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 850-856

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 845-849

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 840-844

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 833-839

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 827-832

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 821-826

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 815-820

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 806-814

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 800-805

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 793-799

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 785-792

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 777-784

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 769-776

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 759-768

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 751-758

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 745-750

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 738-744

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 732-737

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 727-731

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 720-726

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or DownloadShows 713-719

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or DownloadShows 705-712

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 695-704

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 685-694

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 675-684

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 668-674

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 660-667

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 651-659

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 644-650

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 637-643

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 629-636

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 617-628

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 608-616

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 599-607

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 590-598

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 585- 589

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 575-584

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 565-574

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 556-564

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 546-555

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 538-545

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 532-537

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 526-531

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 519-525

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 510-518

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 500-509

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 490-499

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 480-489

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 473-479

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 464-472

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 455-463

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 447-454

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 439-446

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 431-438

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 422-430

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 414-421

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 408-413

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 400-407

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 391-399

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 383-390

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 376-382

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 369-375

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 360-368

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 354-359

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 346-353

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 338-345

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 328-337

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 319-327

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 307-318

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 296-306

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 287-295

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 277-286

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 264-276

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 250-263

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 236-249

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 222-235

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 211-221

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 202-210

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 194-201

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 184-193

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 174-183

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 165-173

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 158-164

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 151-157

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 143-150

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 135-142

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 131-134

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 124-130

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 121-123

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 118-120

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 113 -117

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 112

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 108-111

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 106-108

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 104-105

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 101-103

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 98-100

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 94-97

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 93

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 92

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 91

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 88-90

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 84-87

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 79-83

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 74-78

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 71-73

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 68-70

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 65-67

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 62-64

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 58-61

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 55-57

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 52-54

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 49-51

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 45-48

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 41-44

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 38-40

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 34-37

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 30-33

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 27-29

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 17-26

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 16-22

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 10-15

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1-9

Advertisements
Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

The Pronk Pops Show 1049, March 22, 2018, Story 1: American People and Trump Supporters Demand Trump Veto of Washington Political Elitist Establishment Budget Busting Borrowing Bill Corrupt Congressional Confidence Crisis — Otherwise Restart Tea Party Movement With Aim of Forming American Independence Party to Defeat Democratic and Republican Two Party Tyranny — Trump’s Trillion Dollar Deficits For Fiscal Year 2018 and 2019! — Repeal Senate Racket Rule Requiring 60 Votes Now — Videos

Posted on March 23, 2018. Filed under: Addiction, American History, Banking System, Blogroll, Breaking News, Bribery, Bribes, Budgetary Policy, Business, Cartoons, Central Intelligence Agency, Congress, Corruption, Crime, Culture, Deep State, Defense Spending, Donald J. Trump, Donald J. Trump, Donald Trump, Economics, Education, Empires, Employment, Energy, Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), Federal Government, Fiscal Policy, Foreign Policy, Former President Barack Obama, Free Trade, Government Dependency, Government Spending, Health, High Crimes, Hillary Clinton, Hillary Clinton, History, Homicide, House of Representatives, Housing, Human, Human Behavior, Illegal Immigration, Immigration, Killing, Labor Economics, Law, Legal Immigration, Life, Lying, Medicare, Mexico, Monetary Policy, National Security Agency, News, People, Philosophy, Photos, Politics, Progressives, Public Corruption, Radio, Raymond Thomas Pronk, Regulation, Rule of Law, Senate, Social Networking, Social Security, Tax Policy, Taxation, Taxes, Ted Cruz, Terror, Terrorism, Treason, United States Constitution, United States of America, Videos, War, Wealth, Welfare Spending, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |

 Project_1

The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts

Pronk Pops Show 1049, March 22, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1048, March 21, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1047, March 20, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1046, March 19, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1045, March 8, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1044, March 7, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1043, March 6, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1042, March 1, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1041, February 28, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1040, February 27, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1039, February 26, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1038, February 23, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1037, February 22, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1036, February 21, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1035, February 16, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1034, February 15, 2018  

Pronk Pops Show 1033, February 14, 2018  

Pronk Pops Show 1032, February 13, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1031, February 12, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1030, February 9, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1028, February 7, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1027, February 2, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1026, February 1, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1025, January 31, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1024, January 30, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1023, January 29, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1022, January 26, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1021, January 25, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1020, January 24, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1019, January 18, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1018, January 17, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1017, January 16, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1016, January 10, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1015, January 9, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1014, January 8, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1013, December 13, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 1012, December 12, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 1011, December 11, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 1010, December 8, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 1009, December 7, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 1008, December 1, 2017

See the source image

See the source image

See the source imageSee the source imageSee the source imageSee the source imageSee the source image

See the source imageSee the source imageSee the source image

See the source image

See the source image

See the source image

See the source image

See the source image

Story 1: American People and Trump Supporters Demand Trump Veto of Washington Political Elitist Establishment Budget Busting Borrowing Bill Corrupt Congressional Confidence Crisis — Otherwise Restart Tea Party Movement With Aim of Forming American Independence Party to Defeat Democratic and Republican Two Party Tyranny — Trump’s Trillion Dollar Deficits For Fiscal Year 2018 and 2019! — Repeal Senate Racket Rule Requiring 60 Votes Now — Videos

U.S. Debt Clock

Big Spender

Shirley Bassey

The minute you walked in the joint
I could see you were a man of distinction
A real big spender
Good lookin’ so refined
Say, wouldn’t you like to know what’s goin’ on in my mind?
So let me get right to the point
I don’t pop my cork for every man I see
Hey big spender,
Spend a little time with me
Wouldn’t you like to have fun, fun, fun
How’s about a few laughs, laughs
I could show you a good time
Let me show you a good time!
The minute you walked in the joint
I could see you were a man of distinction
A real big spender
Good lookin’ so refined
Say, wouldn’t you like to know what’s goin’ on in my mind?
So let me get right to the point,
I don’t pop my cork for every guy I see
Hey big spender
Hey big spender
Hey big spender
Spend, a little time with me
Yes
Songwriters: Cy Coleman / Dorothy Fields
Big Spender lyrics © Downtown Music Publishing

WATCH: White House holds news briefing on omnibus spending bill

WATCH: Sen. Schumer, Rep. Pelosi discuss omnibus spending bill

Rush Limbaugh Thinks Trump Should Veto The Omnibus Spending Bill

Omnibus Bill: The Democrats Have Won

What This Is: The Spending Bill Omnibus

Why is a simple majority not enough to pass legislation in the Senate?

Going ‘Nuclear’: Watch the Senate Change its Rules for Supreme Court Nominees

Shields and Brooks look at impact of Senate’s rule change

‘Nuclear option’ for federal nominations inflames debate

Raw: Senate Votes to Change Filibuster Rules

The Rush Limbaugh Show Video 3/22/18 | Omnibus Bill Could Make Trump Voters Go Wobbly

Crashing The Tea Party (Political Documentary) – Real Stories

Laura Ingraham : Congressional Omnibus Spending Bill : 03/21/2018

Rep. Meadows: Not many conservative wins in budget deal

Days behind schedule, can Congress pass its huge spending bill before the next shutdown?

House passes $1.3 trillion spending bill in effort to avoid shutdown

Rep. Louis Gohmert on Congress’ omnibus spending bill

Speaker Ryan Defends Omnibus Spending Bill

Rep. Scalise: Trump’s priorities are in spending bill

Mark Meadows on ‘troubling’ new poll for GOP ahead of midterms

US House of Representatives approves $1.3 trillion spending bill

WATCH Jim Jordan Slams Paul Ryan Over Spending Bill, Drops 5 Word Truth Bomb

Tucker: Left believes anybody can come, never have to leave

Rep. Hill: I voted yes on $1.3 trillion spending bill

David Horowitz – Listen And Decide If The Tea Party Gave Us President Trump

US Tea Party Movement Rallies in Washington

All eyes on Paul with shutdown looming

As the Senate barrels toward the third government funding deadline of the year, Republicans appear in the dark about one key question: What will Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) do?

The libertarian-minded senator caused an hours-long shutdown in February. He’s yet to say if he’ll give a repeat performance going into the midnight Friday deadline to avoid a partial closure.

“Shame, shame. A pox on both Houses — and parties. $1.3 trillion. Busts budget caps. 2200 pages, with just hours to try to read it,” he tweeted on Thursday.

Republican leadership wants to pass the omnibus funding bill Thursday, but senators acknowledged that timeline all comes down to Paul, and they appear to have no idea what he is going to do.

Senate Majority Whip John Cornyn (R-Texas) noted he has not spoken to Paul but predicted with a smile: “He’ll speak up.”

“I think people realize the handwriting is on the wall,” he said. “I just figured I would let him speak up if he wants to speak, and if he doesn’t we’ll vote.”Asked about the chamber’s timeline for voting, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) added, “Whenever Sen. Paul decides we can.”

Under the Senate’s rules the earliest the Senate could hold an initial vote would be early Saturday morning — roughly an hour after the midnight deadline to avoid a partial government closure.

Sen. John Kennedy (R-La.) signaled earlier Thursday that he was undecided on whether he would let the chamber speed up votes. He said after a closed-door caucus lunch that he wouldn’t delay the bill.

“I’m not going to try to delay it out of respect for my colleagues,” he said.

Republican senators said Paul’s plan did not come up during the lunch, which was largely a tribute to retiring Sen. Thad Cochran (R-Miss.).

“There are a lot of people who are going to put pressure on him,” said Sen. David Perdue (R-Ga.).

Asked if there was an effort to “prevail” on Paul, he added: “There always is. I’m not being cute. I think there always is an effort. … There’s no benefit to waiting at this point.”

Sen. Richard Shelby (R-Ala.), asked if the Senate would be able to vote on Thursday, pointed to the Kentucky senator.

“Have y’all spoken to Sen. Paul?” he asked reporters. “Felt his pulse?”

http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/379797-all-eyes-on-paul-with-shutdown-looming

Spending Bill Goes to Senate Ahead of Shutdown Deadline

 Updated on 
  • Legislation would boost domestic and military spending
  • Conservatives object to increased spending in legislation

The House passed a $1.3 trillion spending bill that would avert a government shutdown and increase funding for the military, border security and other domestic programs, though a GOP senator who opposes the measure hasn’t said whether he’ll force a delay past a Friday funding deadline and cause a closure.

In 256-167 vote on Thursday, the House sent the compromise measure to the Senate, which could vote by the end of the day or Friday. White House budget director Mick Mulvaney told reporters that President Donald Trump will sign the bill, saying it funds his priorities. 

The spending bill for this fiscal year has rankled conservative lawmakers who object to increased funds and having to vote without more time to review the 2,232-page text that was made public Wednesday night. Any senator could force a government shutdown by refusing to grant the unanimous consent needed for quick action, and GOP Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky left open the possibility he may do so.

“It sucks,” Kennedy said of the spending measure. “This is a Great-Dane-sized whiz down the leg of every taxpayer in this country. No thought whatsoever to adding over a trillion dollars in debt.”

John Cornyn of Texas, the No. 2 Senate Republican, said he anticipates there ultimately will be no objections to a vote Thursday or Friday.

“People realize that the handwriting is on the wall,” Cornyn said. “This has been a long time coming” ever since a February agreement to raise limits on spending, he said.

The measure would increase spending on the military by $80 billion and on domestic programs by $63 billion over previous budget limits set out in the bipartisan budget agreement that ended a February shutdown.

“Vote yes for the safety and security of this country,” House Speaker Paul Ryan urged his colleagues on the floor, adding that the bill provides the biggest boost in military spending in 15 years.

‘Phenomenal Job’

Earlier, Ryan of Wisconsin was barely able to persuade House GOP members to support a procedural vote setting up debate on the bill. Asked about the rushed process to consider the legislation, Ryan told reporters, “By and large we’ve done a phenomenal job” in following House rules.

The proposal includes $1.6 billion for border security, including money for fencing and levees, though that’s only a fraction of the $25 billion that Trump wanted to build a wall between the U.S. and Mexico.

The compromise spending proposal, unveiled after repeated delays and all-night bargaining sessions, has a provision creating incentives to bolster reporting by federal agencies to the database for gun-buyer background checks, as well as $21 billion for infrastructure projects and an additional $4 billion to combat opioid addiction.

New York’s Nita Lowey, the top spending panel Democrat, said on the House floor that the measure “repudiates the abysmal Trump budget,” which sought $54 billion in cuts to domestic spending.

Ryan delivered a summary of the spending legislation to Trump at the White House Wednesday afternoon. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky joined the meeting, which included Vice President Mike Pence, by telephone.

Hudson River Tunnel

One of the biggest obstacles to reaching the agreement was the status of funding for a Hudson River tunnel between New York and New Jersey. Advocates, mainly Democrats and Republicans representing the two states, argued it is one of the most important infrastructure projects in the U.S. But Trump has insisted on removing money for the project, known as Gateway, from the spending plan.

The legislation includes several provisions in response to mass shootings. It includes incentives for reporting to a database for gun-buyer background checks and permits the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to research the causes of gun violence, after more than 20 years of restrictions that prevented the agency from doing so.

Also included is $75 million this year to train teachers and school officials to respond to attacks, pay for metal detectors and other equipment, and create anonymous systems for reporting possible threats to schools. Between 2019 and 2028, $100 million a year would be provided.

The bill would contain funding to combat Russian interference in this year’s elections, and it would provide more than $600 million to build a new rural broadband network.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-03-22/spending-bill-passes-house-as-senators-mull-government-shutdown

Here’s what Congress is stuffing into its $1.3 trillion spending bill

 March 22 at 1:33 AM 

Negotiators in Congress on March 21 reached an agreement on a $1.3 trillion spending bill, keeping government agencies operating through September.

Congressional negotiators reached a tentative agreement Wednesday night on a $1.3 trillion federal spending bill, releasing it to the public just 52 hours before a government shutdown deadline. The draft billruns 2,232 pages, and we’re going through it so you don’t have to. Here are key highlights:

Overall spending: The “omnibus” appropriations bill doles out funding for the remainder of fiscal 2018 — that is, until Sept. 30 — to virtually every federal department and agency pursuant to the two-year budget agreement Congress reached in February. Under that agreement, defense spending generally favored by Republicans is set to jump $80 billion over previously authorized spending levels, while domestic spending favored by Democrats rises by $63 billion. The defense funding includes a 2.4 percent pay raise for military personnel and $144 billion for Pentagon hardware. The domestic spending is scattered across the rest of the federal government, but lawmakers are highlighting increases in funding for infrastructure, medical research, veterans programs and efforts to combat the opioid epidemic. Civilian federal employees get a 1.9 percent pay raise, breaking parity with the military for the first time in several years.

Border wall: The bill provides $1.6 billion for barriers along the U.S.-Mexico border but with serious strings attached. Of the total, $251 million is earmarked specifically for “secondary fencing” near San Diego, where fencing is already in place; $445 million is for no more than 25 miles of “levee fencing”; $196 million is for “primary pedestrian fencing” in the Rio Grande Valley; $445 million is for the replacement of existing fencing in that area; and the rest is for planning, design and technology — not for wall construction. The biggest catch is this: The barriers authorized to be built under the act must be “operationally effective designs” already deployed as of last March, meaning none of President Trump’s big, beautiful wall prototypes can be built.

ADVERTISING

Immigration enforcement: The bill bumps up funding for both U.S. Customs and Border Protection and for U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement — delivering increases sought by the Trump administration. But there are significant restrictions on how that new money can be spent. Democrats pushed for, and won, limitations on hiring new ICE interior enforcement agents and on the number of undocumented immigrants the agency can detain. Under provisions written into the bill, ICE can have no more than 40,354 immigrants in detention by the time the fiscal year ends in September. But there is a catch: The Homeland Security secretary is granted discretion to transfer funds from other accounts “as necessary to ensure the detention of aliens prioritized for removal.”

Infrastructure: Numerous transportation programs get funding increases in the bill, but the debate leading up to its release focused on one megaproject: The Gateway program, aimed at improving rail access to and from Manhattan on Amtrak and New Jersey Transit. Trump made it a signature fight, largely to punish Senate Minority Leader Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) and other Democratic backers of the project who have held up other Trump initiatives, and Transportation Secretary Elaine Chao told Congress this month that the project simply wasn’t ready for prime time. The project is not mentioned in the bill, and Republican aides say that they turned back efforts to essentially earmark federal funding for the project. But Democrats say that the project is still eligible for as much as $541 million in funding this fiscal year through accounts that Chao does not control. The project might also still qualify for other pools of money, though it will have to compete with other projects on an equal playing field.

Health care: Left out of the bill was a health-care measure sought by GOP Sens. Susan Collins (Maine) and Lamar Alexander (Tenn.) that would have allowed states to establish high-risk pools to help cover costly insurance claims while restoring certain payments to insurers under the Affordable Care Act. Trump, who ended the “cost-sharing reduction” payments in the fall, supported the Collins-Alexander language. But Democrats opposed it, because they said it included language expanding the existing prohibition on federal funding for abortions.

Guns: The bill includes the Fix NICS Act, bipartisan legislation aimed at improving the National Instant Criminal Background Check System that is used to screen U.S. gun buyers. It provides for incentives and penalties to encourage federal agencies and states to send records to the federal database in an effort to prevent the type of oversight that preceded last year’s church massacre in Sutherland Springs, Tex. Democrats pushed for more aggressive gun laws, including universal background checks, but won only a minor concession: Language in the report accompanying the bill clarifying that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention can, in fact, conduct research into gun violence. A long-standing rider known as the Dickey Amendment, which states that no CDC funds “may be used to advocate or promote gun control,” has been interpreted in the past to bar such research. The amendment itself remains.

Taxes: The “grain glitch,” a provision in the new GOP tax law that favored farmer-owned cooperatives over traditional agriculture corporations by providing a significantly larger tax benefit for sales to cooperatives, is undone in the bill. Farm-state lawmakers and farming groups said that without a fix, the tax law could disrupt the farm economy and even put some companies out of business. The spending bill tweaks the tax law to level the playing field between sales to coops and corporations. Democrats in exchange got a 12.5 percent increase in annual allocations for a low-income housing tax credit for four years.

Internal Revenue Service: Despite the administration’s attempts to slash its budget, lawmakers grant $11.431 billion to the nation’s tax collectors, a $196 million year-to-year increase and $456 million more than Trump requested. The figure includes $320 million to implement changes enacted as part of the GOP tax overhaul plan.

Opioids: The bill increases funding to tackle the opioid epidemic, a boost that lawmakers from both parties hailed as a win. The legislation allocates more than $4.65 billion across agencies to help states and local governments on efforts toward prevention, treatment and law enforcement initiatives. That represents a $3 billion increase over 2017 spending levels.

Foreign policy: Included in the spending bill is the Taylor Force Act. Named after an American who was killed by a Palestinian in 2016, the measure curtails certain economic assistance to the Palestinian Authority until it stops financially supporting convicted terrorists and their families. It unanimously passed the House last year.

Baseball: Should the bill pass, some minor-league ballplayers could see a raise this year — but only barely. The Save America’s Pastime Act exempts pro baseball players from federal labor laws and has been a major lobbying priority for Major League Baseball ever since minor-league players began suing the league in recent years for paying them illegally low wages. The version in the bill exempts only players working under a contract that pays minimum wage, but there are major loopholes: The contract has to pay minimum wage for a only 40-hour workweek during the season, not spring training or the offseason — and it includes no guarantee of overtime even though baseball prospects routinely work long hours. Thus, under the bill, a player is guaranteed a minimum salary of $1,160 a month. The current minor-league minimum is $1,100 a month.

Election security: The bill provides $380 million to the federal Election Assistance Commission to make payments to states to improve election security and technology, and the FBI is set to receive $300 million in counterintelligence funding to combat Russian hacking.

Congressional misconduct: The House appears to have gone further than the Senate to address concerns about how allegations of sexual harassment and misconduct are handled on Capitol Hill. The House set aside $4 million to pay for mandatory workplace rights training and plans to create a new Office of Employee Advocacy to assist employees in proceedings before the Office of Compliance or House Ethics Committees. House leaders also made a point of highlighting plans to expand the House Day Care Center. But senators failed to reach agreement on making changes to how allegations of wrongdoing are handled, so they won’t be included in the bill.

Congressional Research Service: The bill mandates that reports published by Congress’s in-house researchers be published online for public consumption. Historically, such reports have not been easy to access online, and a House Appropriations subcommittee took the lead last year in finally forcing transparency.

District of Columbia: The nation’s capital will see a slight dip in its federal funding. Lawmakers provide $721 million in direct federal funding to the District, a $35 million drop from last year — mostly because of a $22 million cut in emergency planning money that was used to prepare for the 2017 presidential inauguration. Lawmakers also kept out GOP attempts to block the District’s budget autonomy act and its assisted suicide law.

Religion and politics: The federal ban on tax-exempt churches engaging in political activity, known as the Johnson Amendment, will continue, despite attempts by Trump and GOP lawmakers to rescind it.

Jury duty: If you serve on a federal jury, your daily pay rate will increase to $50 per day — a bipartisan win sought in part after two dozen federal grand jurors in Washington petitioned House and Senate judiciary committee members last fall, saying the current pay rate is “abysmal,” below the minimum wage and a hardship.

Secret Service: The agency responsible for protecting the president and his family gets $2.007 billion, including $9.9 million for overtime worked without pay in 2017 and $14 million to construct a taller and stronger fence around the White House. In a win for congressional Democrats concerned about Secret Service agents protecting Donald Trump Jr. and Eric Trump on overseas business trips, the bill includes language requiring an annual report on travel costs for people protected by the service — including the adult children of presidents.

Restaurant tips: In December, the Labor Department proposed a rule that would allow employers such as restaurant owners to “pool” their employees’ tips and redistribute them as they saw fit — including, potentially, to themselves. That generated a bipartisan outcry, and the bill spells out explicitly in law that tip pooling is not permitted: “An employer may not keep tips received by its employees for any purposes, including allowing managers or supervisors to keep any portion of employees’ tips, regardless of whether or not the employer takes a tip credit.”

Yucca Mountain: The legislation blocks attempts by the Energy Department to restart a moribund nuclear storage program at the mountain in the Silver State. Former Senate majority leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) was a fierce opponent of the measure. Sens. Dean Heller (R-Nev.) — the most embattled GOP incumbent up for reelection this year — and Catherine Cortez Masto (D-Nev.) proved that they, too, can stop a federal program that is widely unpopular in their state from starting again.

FBI: The spending bill grants the agency $9.03 billion for salaries and expenses, a $263 million jump over the last fiscal year and $307 million more than the Trump administration requested. The bill does not include any funding for the construction of a new FBI headquarters, a win for Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.), a member of the Senate Appropriations Committee. According to aides familiar with the move, the senator sought to block new construction funding in response to the administration’s plans to keep the FBI headquarters in downtown Washington instead of moving it to suburban Virginia or Maryland.

Asian carp: The invasive species has wreaked havoc on the Great Lakes, and lawmakers from states bordering the lakes touted language that forces the Army Corps of Engineers to keep working on ensuring that vessels in the Illinois River don’t carry the carp across an electric field erected to keep them out of the lakes.

Apprenticeships: Federal money for apprenticeship programs will increase by $50 million, and there’s a $75 million increase for career and technical education programs. The office of House Speaker Paul D. Ryan (R-Wis.) noted that other job training and “workforce development” programs also stand to benefit, including “more money for child care and early head start programs to help make it easier for job seekers to enter or return to the workforce.” This has been an area of concern for former “Apprentice” star Ivanka Trump.

Arts: Federal funding for the arts goes up, despite GOP attempts to slash it. The National Endowments for the Arts and Humanities will see funding climb to $152.8 million each, a $3 million increase over the last fiscal year. Trump proposed eliminating the endowments. The National Gallery of Art gets $165.9 million, a $1.04 million jump in funding. The John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts will receive $40.5 million, which is $4 million more than the last fiscal year.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/wp/2018/03/22/heres-what-congress-is-stuffing-into-its-1-3-trillion-spending-bill/?utm_term=.cd95b9bc69e6

 

 

State and Local Income, Sales and Property Taxes All Hit Records in 2017

By Terence P. Jeffrey | March 22, 2018 | 12:54 PM EDT

(Screen Capture)

(CNSNews.com) – Real state and local income, sales and property taxes all hit records in 2017, according to data released this week by the Census Bureau.

State and local governments collected a record $404,509,000,000 in individual income taxes in 2017, according to the Census Bureau. Before 2017, the greatest level of individual income tax revenues collected by state and local governments occurred in 2015, when those governments collected $399,933,270,000 in individual income taxes (in constant 2017 dollars converted using the Bureau of Labor Statistics inflation calculator).

State and local governments also collected a record $386,153,000,000 in general sales and gross receipts taxes in 2017. Prior to that, the largest state and local general sales and gross receipt tax collections took place in 2015, when state and local governments collected $385,904,260,000 in those taxes (in constant 2017 dollars).

At the same time, state and local governments collected a record $573,064,000,000 in property taxes in 2017. Before 2017, the largest property tax collections took place in 2016, when state and local governments collected $551,936,350,000 in property taxes (in constant 2017 dollars).

Property taxes also hit a record in 2017 on a per capita basis. During the year, the record $573,064,000,000 in property taxes that state and local governments collected from property owners equaled $1,759 per each of the 325,719,178 men, women and children in the United States.

Per capita state and local income taxes peaked in 2015 at approximately $1,246 and per capita state and local general sales and gross receipts taxes peaked in 2006 at approximately $1,214.

The Census Bureau defines “general sales and gross receipts taxes” as taxes that “are applicable with only specified exceptions to all types of goods and services, or all gross income.” Taxes that are targeted at specific items such as alcoholic beverages, amusements, insurance, motor fuels, amounts bet at race tracks, public utilities and tobacco are not counted.

Property taxes, according to the Census Bureau, are taxes “conditioned on ownership of property and measured to its valued.” They include taxes on real and personal property, including motor vehicles.

https://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/terence-p-jeffrey/state-and-local-income-sales-and-property-taxes-hit-records-2017

It’s all Congress’s fault! White House says it can only build 33 miles of new border barriers because Democrats refuse to give them money for the whole wall Trump promised

  • Congressional budget appropriation for the next six months sets aside $1.6 billion for immigration and border security
  • Only $600 million of that covers construction of small parts of Donald Trump’s promised border wall
  • White House budget chief says GOP got 110 miles of border barriers funded, but only 33 miles cover stretches of open border with no existing walls or fencing
  • President promised last year to build his wall in his first term and said it would require 700 to 900 miles of new sections
  • At that rate is would take at least 10-1/2 years to complete, and maybe longer 

White House officials said Thursday that President Donald Trump will sign a hotly contested budget bill when lawmakers send it to him, despite the fact that it provides for only 33 miles of new barriers along the U.S.-Mexico border.

Trump vowed in April 2017 that his long-promised border wall would be finished by the end of his first term in office.

‘It’s certainly going to – yeah,’ he told reporters then, answering a specific question about a four-year timeline and adding that ‘we have plenty of time.’

But at the rate the White House has agreed to, the project could stretch through more than two administrations.

President Donald Trump promised to build a border wall in his first term to separate the U.S. from Mexico, but the latest congressional budget sets a pace that would take more than a decade to complete it

President Donald Trump promised to build a border wall in his first term to separate the U.S. from Mexico, but the latest congressional budget sets a pace that would take more than a decade to complete it

White House budget chief Mick Mulvaney said Thursday that the six-month budget includes money for 110 miles of walls and fencing but just 33 miles of that will go up in places that don't already have them

White House budget chief Mick Mulvaney said Thursday that the six-month budget includes money for 110 miles of walls and fencing but just 33 miles of that will go up in places that don’t already have them

More than half of the 110 funded miles – 63 in all – will look like this section, with replacement 'bollard walls' going up so weaker fencing can be torn down

More than half of the 110 funded miles – 63 in all – will look like this section, with replacement ‘bollard walls’ going up so weaker fencing can be torn down

White House Budget Director Mick Mulvaney said Thursday in a hastily assembled briefing that Capitol Hill inertia is to blame.

‘If Congress would give us the money to do this, we would do it now,’ he told DailyMail.com.

His team and that of Legislative Director Marc Short have secured funding for 110 miles of border barriers costing a sliver of the $1.3 trillion spending bill set to finish its path through Congress later in the day.

Including new roads, Air Force and U.S. Marine Corps assets, technological improvements, facilities, border patrol vehicles, boats, weapons and new personnel, he total package will consumer $1.6 billion in taxpayer dollars.

Some estimates put funding for border barriers in Thursday’s spending bill at just $600 million of that

Video playing bottom right…
Loaded: 0%
Progress: 0%
0:00
Pause
Unmute
Current Time0:00
/
Duration Time0:29
Fullscreen

Trump has said he would only need to build between 700 and 900 miles of walls to secure the border; more than half of the 1,954 miles is lined by 'natural barriers' like mountains and rivers

Trump has said he would only need to build between 700 and 900 miles of walls to secure the border; more than half of the 1,954 miles is lined by ‘natural barriers’ like mountains and rivers

The president made a show last week of visiting border wall prototypes in San Diego last week, but it's unclear if or when they'll ever be included in actual construction

The president made a show last week of visiting border wall prototypes in San Diego last week, but it’s unclear if or when they’ll ever be included in actual construction

Hundreds of miles of U.S.-Mexico border, like this area in southern Arizona, are completely unprotected

Hundreds of miles of U.S.-Mexico border, like this area in southern Arizona, are completely unprotected

 President Trump inspects prototypes of border wall in California

The president agreed during his campaign that the entire 1,954 miles of U.S.-Mexico border doesn’t need physical protection from illegal immigration and the drug trade.

He said last year aboard Air Force One on his way to Paris for a Bastille Day celebration that between 700 and 900 miles would be sufficient because the rest is blocked by ‘natural barriers’ including mountains and ‘rivers that are violent and vicious.’

Ordinary fencing already stretches along 650 miles of the border. An administration official said this week that a stronger wall ‘would have to be replacing all of that.’

The appropriations bill that Mulvaney said will get a presidential signature only covers about six months – until the end of the government’s fiscal year on September 30.

This fencing is all that separates Mexico from 'El Norte' in some parts of Arizona

This fencing is all that separates Mexico from ‘El Norte’ in some parts of Arizona

White House Director of Legislative Affairs Marc Short (left) told reporters Thursday that his office is already pressing for more wall funding in 2019

White House Director of Legislative Affairs Marc Short (left) told reporters Thursday that his office is already pressing for more wall funding in 2019

At the rate of 33 miles per half-year, it would take the federal government between 10-1/2 and 13-1/2 years to complete the project, depending on the exact mileage targeted.

‘Did we get everything we wanted when it comes to immigration? Absolutely not,’ Mulvaney said.

Short emphasized that the administration is already preparing to go to battle over next year’s budget, suggesting that Thursday’s six-month deal is only a taste of what’s to come.

‘We’re already halfway through this fiscal year,’ he told DailyMail.com, adding that the White House has ‘already submitted budgets for 2019.’

‘We certainly continue to ask for additional funding to continue the wall throughout this year,’ he said. ‘This is for six months because Congress has been unable to complete the appropriations process.’

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5532871/White-House-Congress-paid-33-miles-new-border-barriers.html#ixzz5AVoxpOqt

Filibuster in the United States Senate

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

filibuster in the United States Senate is a dilatory or obstructive tactic used in the United States Senate to prevent a measure from being brought to a vote. The most common form of filibuster occurs when one or more senators attempts to delay or block a vote on a bill by extending debate on the measure. The Senate rules permit a senator, or a series of senators, to speak for as long as they wish, and on any topic they choose, unless “three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn”[1] (usually 60 out of 100) bring the debate to a close by invoking cloture under Senate Rule XXII.

The ability to block a measure through extended debate was an inadvertent side effect of an 1806 rule change, and was infrequently used during much of the 19th and 20th centuries. In 1970, the Senate adopted a “two-track” procedure to prevent filibusters from stopping all other Senate business. The minority then felt politically safer in threatening filibusters more regularly, which became normalized over time to the point that 60 votes are now required to end debate on nearly every controversial legislative item. As a result, the modern “filibuster” rarely manifests as an extended floor debate. Instead, “the contemporary Senate has morphed into a 60-vote institution — the new normal for approving measures or matters — a fundamental transformation from earlier years.”[2] This effective supermajority requirement has had very significant policy and political impacts on Congress and the other branches of government.

Beginning in 1917 with the cloture rule and especially since the 1970s, there have been efforts to limit the practice. These include laws that explicitly limit Senate debate, notably the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 that created the budget reconciliation process. More recently, changes in 2013 and 2017 now require only a simple majority to invoke cloture on nominations, although legislation still requires 60 votes.

One or more senators may still occasionally hold the floor for an extended period, sometimes without the advance knowledge of the Senate leadership. However, these “filibusters” usually result only in brief delays and are not outcome-determinative, since the Senate’s ability to act ultimately depends upon whether there are sufficient votes to invoke cloture and proceed to a final vote on passage. However, such brief delays can be politically relevant when exercised shortly before a major deadline (such as avoiding a government shutdown) or before a Senate recess.

History

Constitutional design: simple majority voting

Although not explicitly mandated, the Constitution and its framers clearly envisioned that simple majority voting would be used to conduct business. The Constitution provides, for example, that a majority of each House constitutes a quorum to do business.[3] Meanwhile, a small number of super-majority requirements were explicitly included in the original document, including conviction on impeachment charges (2/3 of Senate),[4] expelling a member of Congress (2/3 of the chamber in question),[5] overriding presidential vetoes (2/3 of both Houses),[6] ratifying treaties (2/3 of Senate)[7] and proposing constitutional amendments (2/3 of both Houses).[8] Through negative textual implication, the Constitution also gives a simple majority the power to set procedural rules: “Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behaviour, and, with the Concurrence of two thirds, expel a Member.”[5]

Commentaries in The Federalist Papers confirm this understanding. In Federalist No. 58, the Constitution’s primary drafter James Madison defended the document against routine super-majority requirements, either for a quorum or a “decision”:

“It has been said that more than a majority ought to have been required for a quorum; and in particular cases, if not in all, more than a majority of a quorum for a decision. That some advantages might have resulted from such a precaution, cannot be denied. It might have been an additional shield to some particular interests, and another obstacle generally to hasty and partial measures. But these considerations are outweighed by the inconveniences in the opposite scale.
“In all cases where justice or the general good might require new laws to be passed, or active measures to be pursued, the fundamental principle of free government would be reversed. It would be no longer the majority that would rule: the power would be transferred to the minority. Were the defensive privilege limited to particular cases, an interested minority might take advantage of it to screen themselves from equitable sacrifices to the general weal, or, in particular emergencies, to extort unreasonable indulgences.”[9]

In Federalist No. 22, Alexander Hamilton described super-majority requirements as being one of the main problems with the previous Articles of Confederation, and identified several evils which would result from such a requirement:

“To give a minority a negative upon the majority (which is always the case where more than a majority is requisite to a decision), is, in its tendency, to subject the sense of the greater number to that of the lesser. … The necessity of unanimity in public bodies, or of something approaching towards it, has been founded upon a supposition that it would contribute to security. But its real operation is to embarrass the administration, to destroy the energy of the government, and to substitute the pleasure, caprice, or artifices of an insignificant, turbulent, or corrupt junto, to the regular deliberations and decisions of a respectable majority. In those emergencies of a nation, in which the goodness or badness, the weakness or strength of its government, is of the greatest importance, there is commonly a necessity for action. The public business must, in some way or other, go forward. If a pertinacious minority can control the opinion of a majority, respecting the best mode of conducting it, the majority, in order that something may be done, must conform to the views of the minority; and thus the sense of the smaller number will overrule that of the greater, and give a tone to the national proceedings. Hence, tedious delays; continual negotiation and intrigue; contemptible compromises of the public good. And yet, in such a system, it is even happy when such compromises can take place: for upon some occasions things will not admit of accommodation; and then the measures of government must be injuriously suspended, or fatally defeated. It is often, by the impracticability of obtaining the concurrence of the necessary number of votes, kept in a state of inaction. Its situation must always savor of weakness, sometimes border upon anarchy.[10]

Accidental creation and early use of the filibuster

In 1789, the first U.S. Senate adopted rules allowing senators to move the previous question (by simple majority vote), which meant ending debate and proceeding to a vote. But in 1806, the Senate’s presiding officer, Vice President Aaron Burr argued that the previous-question motion was redundant, had only been exercised once in the preceding four years, and should be eliminated.[11] The Senate agreed and modified its rules.[11] Because it created no alternative mechanism for terminating debate, filibusters became theoretically possible.

Nevertheless, in the early 19th century the principle of simple-majority voting in the Senate was well established, and particularly valued by Southern slave-holding states. New states were admitted to the Union in pairs to preserve the sectional balance in the Senate, most notably in the Missouri Compromise of 1820.

Until the late 1830s, however, the filibuster remained a solely theoretical option, never actually exercised. The first Senate filibuster occurred in 1837.[12] In 1841, a defining moment came during debate on a bill to charter the Second Bank of the United States. Senator Henry Clay tried to end the debate via majority vote, and Senator William R. King threatened a filibuster, saying that Clay “may make his arrangements at his boarding house for the winter.” Other senators sided with King, and Clay backed down.[11]

At the time, both the Senate and the House of Representatives allowed filibusters as a way to prevent a vote from taking place. Subsequent revisions to House rules limited filibuster privileges in that chamber, but the Senate continued to allow the tactic.[13]

In practice, narrow majorities could enact legislation by changing the Senate rules, but only on the first day of the session in January or March.[14]

The emergence of cloture (1917–1969)

In 1917, during World War I, a rule allowing cloture of a debate was adopted by the Senate on a 76-3 roll call vote[15] at the urging of President Woodrow Wilson,[16] after a group of 12 anti-war senators managed to kill a bill that would have allowed Wilson to arm merchant vessels in the face of unrestricted German submarine warfare.[17]

From 1917 to 1949, the requirement for cloture was two-thirds of senators voting.[18] Despite that formal requirement, however, political scientist David Mayhew has argued that in practice, it was unclear whether a filibuster could be sustained against majority opposition.[19] During the 1930s, Senator Huey Long of Louisiana used the filibuster to promote his populist policies. He recited Shakespeare and read out recipes for “pot-likkers” during his filibusters, which occupied 15 hours of debate.[16] In 1946, five Southern Democrats — senators John H. Overton (La.), Richard B. Russell (Ga.), Senator Millard E. Tydings (Md.), Clyde R. Hoey (N.C.), and Kenneth McKellar (Tenn.) — blocked a vote on a bill (S. 101)[20] proposed by Democrat Dennis Chávez of New Mexico that would have created a permanent Fair Employment Practice Committee (FEPC) to prevent discrimination in the workplace. The filibuster lasted weeks, and Senator Chávez was forced to remove the bill from consideration after a failed cloture vote, even though he had enough votes to pass the bill.

In 1949, the Senate made invoking cloture more difficult by requiring two-thirds of the entire Senate membership to vote in favor of a cloture motion.[21] Moreover, future proposals to change the Senate rules were themselves specifically exempted from being subject to cloture.[22]:191 In 1953, Senator Wayne Morse of Oregon set a record by filibustering for 22 hours and 26 minutes while protesting the Tidelands Oil legislation. Senator Strom Thurmond of South Carolina broke this record in 1957 by filibustering the Civil Rights Act of 1957for 24 hours and 18 minutes,[23] although the bill ultimately passed.

In 1959, anticipating more civil rights legislation, the Senate under the leadership of Majority Leader Lyndon Johnson restored the cloture threshold to two-thirds of those voting.[21] Although the 1949 rule had eliminated cloture on rules changes themselves, Johnson acted at the very beginning of the new Congress on January 5, 1959, and the resolution was adopted by a 72-22 vote with the support of three top Democrats and three of the four top Republicans. The presiding officer, Vice President Richard Nixon, supported the move and stated his opinion that the Senate “has a constitutional right at the beginning of each new Congress to determine rules it desires to follow.”[24] The 1959 change also eliminated the 1949 exemption for rules changes, allowing cloture to once again be invoked on future changes.[22]:193

One of the most notable filibusters of the 1960s occurred when Southern Democrats attempted to block the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 by filibustering for 75 hours, including a 14 hour and 13 minute address by Senator Robert Byrd of West Virginia. The filibuster failed when the Senate invoked cloture for only the second time since 1927.[25]

The two-track system, 60-vote rule and rise of the routine filibuster (1970 onward)

After a series of filibusters in the 1960s over civil rights legislation, the Senate put a “two-track system” into place in 1970 under the leadership of Majority Leader Mike Mansfield and Majority Whip Robert Byrd. Before this system was introduced, a filibuster would stop the Senate from moving on to any other legislative activity. Tracking allows the majority leader—with unanimous consent or the agreement of the minority leader—to have more than one bill pending on the floor as unfinished business. Under the two-track system, the Senate can have two or more pieces of legislation pending on the floor simultaneously by designating specific periods during the day when each one will be considered.[26][27]

Number of cloture motions filed, voted on, and invoked by the U.S. Senate since 1917.

Cloture voting in the United States Senate since 1917.[28]

The notable side effect of this change was that by no longer bringing Senate business to a complete halt, filibusters on particular legislation became politically easier for the minority to sustain.[29][30][31][32] As a result, the number of filibusters began increasing rapidly, eventually leading to the modern era in which an effective supermajority requirement exists to pass legislation, with no practical requirement that the minority party actually hold the floor or extend debate.

In 1975, the Senate revised its cloture rule so that three-fifths of sworn senators (60 votes out of 100) could limit debate, except for changing Senate rules which still requires a two-thirds majority of those present and voting to invoke cloture.[33][34] However, by returning to an absolute number of all Senators (60) rather than a proportion of those present and voting, the change also made any filibusters easier to sustain on the floor by a small number of senators from the minority party without requiring the presence of their minority colleagues. This further reduced the majority’s leverage to force an issue through extended debate.

The Senate also experimented with a rule that removed the need to speak on the floor in order to filibuster (a “talking filibuster”), thus allowing for “virtual filibusters”.[35] Another tactic, the post-cloture filibuster—which used points of order to delay legislation because they were not counted as part of the limited time allowed for debate—was rendered ineffective by a rule change in 1979.[36][37][38]

As the filibuster has evolved from a rare practice that required holding the floor for extended periods into a routine 60-vote supermajority requirement, Senate leaders have increasingly used cloture motions as a regular tool to manage the flow of business, often even in the absence of a threatened filibuster. Thus, the presence or absence of cloture attempts is not necessarily a reliable indicator of the presence or absence of a threatened filibuster. Because filibustering does not depend on the use of any specific rules, whether a filibuster is present is always a matter of judgment.[39]

Recent efforts to limit filibusters

In 2005, a group of Republican senators led by Majority Leader Bill Frist proposed having the presiding officer, Vice President Dick Cheney, rule that a filibuster on judicial nominees was unconstitutional, as it was inconsistent with the President’s power to name judges with the advice and consent of a simple majority of senators.[40][41] This was a response to the Democrats’ threat to filibuster some judicial nominees of President George W. Bush. Senator Trent Lott, the junior senator from Mississippi, used the word “nuclear” to describe the plan, and so it became known as the “nuclear option“.[42]

With Republicans effectively controlling the Senate 55-45, a group of 14 senators—seven Democrats and seven Republicans, collectively dubbed the “Gang of 14“—reached an agreement to defuse the conflict. The seven Democrats promised not to filibuster Bush’s nominees except under “extraordinary circumstances”, while the seven Republicans promised to oppose the “nuclear option” unless they thought a nominee was being filibustered under non-extraordinary circumstances. Thus, there would be 62 votes to invoke cloture in most cases, and 52 votes to oppose the nuclear option.[43][44][45] This agreement was successful in the short term, but it expired in January 2007, at the end of the second session of the 109th United States Congress.[46]

From April to June 2010, under Democratic control, the Senate Committee on Rules and Administration held a series of monthly public hearings on the history and use of the filibuster in the Senate.[47] In response to the use of the filibuster in the 111th Congress, all Democratic senators returning to the 112th Congress signed a petition to Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nevada) requesting that the filibuster be reformed, including abolishing secret holds and reducing the amount of time allotted for post-cloture debate.

Minor 2013 changes

During the 113th Congress, two packages of amendments were adopted on January 25, 2013.[48] Changes to standing orders affecting just the 2013–14 Congress (Senate Resolution 15) were passed by a vote of 78 to 16, allowing Reid, the majority leader, to prohibit a filibuster on a motion to begin consideration of a bill.[48] Changes to the permanent Senate rules (Senate Resolution 16) were passed by a vote of 86 to 9.[48][49]

The changes removed the 60-vote requirement to begin debate on legislation, and allowed the minority two amendments to measures that reached the Senate floor. This change was implemented as a standing order that expired at the end of the term in which it was passed.[50][51] The new rules also reduced the amount of time allowed for debate after a motion to proceed from 30 hours to four hours. Additionally, they stated that a filibuster on a motion to proceed could be blocked with a petition signed by eight members of the minority, including the minority leader.[51] For district court nominations, the new rules reduced the maximum time between cloture and a confirmation vote from 30 hours to two hours.[51] Finally, if senators wished to block a bill or nominee after the motion to proceed, they had to be present in the Senate and debate.[52][50]

Despite these changes, 60 votes were still required to overcome a filibuster, and the “silent filibuster”—in which a senator can delay a bill even if they leave the floor—remained in place.[52][50]

Abolition for nominations: 2013 and 2017

On November 21, 2013, the Senate used the so-called “nuclear option,” voting 52–48 — with all Republicans and three Democrats opposed — to eliminate the use of the filibuster on executive branch nominees and judicial nominees, except to the Supreme Court. At the time of the vote, there were 59 executive branch nominees and 17 judicial nominees awaiting confirmation.[53]

The Democrats’ stated motivation was what they saw as an expansion of filibustering by Republicans during the Obama administration, especially with respect to nominations for the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.[54][55] Republicans had asserted that the D.C. Circuit was underworked[53] and cited a need to cut costs by reducing the number of judges.[56] Democrats responded that Republicans had not raised these concerns earlier, when President Bush had made nominations to the court, and argued that the size of the court needed to be maintained because of the complexity of the cases it hears.[57][58] Senate Democrats who supported the “nuclear option” also did so out of frustration with filibusters of executive branch nominees for agencies such as the Federal Housing Finance Agency.[54]

In 2015, Republicans took control of the Senate and kept the 2013 rules in place.[59] Finally, on April 6, 2017, the Senate eliminated the sole remaining exception to the 2013 change by invoking the “nuclear option” for Supreme Court nominees. This was done in order to allow a simple majority to confirm Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court. The vote to change the rules was 52 to 48 along party lines.[60]

Exceptions

The only bills that are not currently subject to effective 60-vote requirements are those considered under provisions of law that limit time for debating them.[61] These limits on debate allow the Senate to hold a simple-majority vote on final passage without obtaining the 60 votes normally needed to close debate. As a result, many major legislative actions in recent decades have been adopted through one of these methods.

Reconciliation is a procedure created in 1974 as part of the congressional budget process. In brief, the annual budget process begins with adoption of a budget resolution (passed by simple majority in each house, not signed by President, does not carry force of law) that sets overall funding levels for the government. The Senate may then consider a budget reconciliation bill, not subject to filibuster, that reconciles funding amounts in any annual appropriations bills with the amounts specified in the budget resolution. However, under the Byrd rule no non-budgetary “extraneous matter” may be considered in a reconciliation bill. The presiding officer, relying always (as of 2017) on the opinion of the Senate parliamentarian, determines whether an item is extraneous, and a 60-vote majority is required to include such material in a reconciliation bill.

The Congressional Review Act, adopted in 1995, allows Congress to review and repeal administrative regulations adopted by the Executive Branch within 60 legislative days. This procedure will most typically be used successfully shortly after a party change in the presidency. It was used once in 2001 to repeal an ergonomics rule promulgated under Bill Clinton), was not used in 2009, and was used 14 times in 2017 to repeal various regulations adopted in the final year of the Barack Obama presidency.

Policy and political effects

The modern-era filibuster — and the effective 60-vote supermajority requirement it has led to — have had very major policy and political effects, both institutionally and on specific major policy initiatives from Presidents of both parties.

Institutional effects

Congress. The supermajority rule has made it very difficult, often impossible, for Congress to pass any but the most non-controversial legislation in recent decades. During times of unified party control, majorities have attempted (with varying levels of success) to enact their major policy priorities through the budget reconciliation process, resulting in legislation constrained by budget rules. Meanwhile, public approval for Congress as an institution has fallen to its lowest levels ever, with large segments of the public seeing the institution as ineffective.[citation needed] Shifting majorities of both parties — and their supporters — have often been frustrated as major policy priorities articulated in political campaigns are unable to obtain passage following an election.

The Presidency. Presidents of both parties have increasingly filled the policymaking vacuum with expanded use of executive power, including executive orders in areas that had traditionally been handled through legislation. For example, Barack Obama effected major changes in immigration policy by issuing work permits to some undocumented workers,[citation needed] while Donald Trump has issued several significant executive orders since taking office in 2017 along with undoing many of Obama’s initiatives.[citation needed] As a result, policy in these areas is increasingly determined by executive preference, and is more easily changed after elections, rather than through more permanent legislative policy.

Judiciary. The Supreme Court’s caseload has declined significantly, with various commenters suggesting that the decline in major legislation has been a major cause.[62] Meanwhile, more policy issues are resolved judicially without action by Congress — despite the existence of potential simple majority support in the Senate — on topics such as the legalization of same-sex marriage.[citation needed]

Major presidential policy initiatives

The implied threat of a filibuster — and the resulting 60-vote requirement in the modern era — have had major impacts on the ability of recent Presidents to enact their top legislative priorities into law. The effects of the 60-vote requirement are most apparent in periods where the President and both Houses of Congress are controlled by the same political party, typically early in a presidential term.

Bill Clinton

In 1993-94, President Bill Clinton enjoyed Democratic majorities in both chambers of the 103rd Congress, including a 57-43 advantage in the Senate. Yet the Clinton health care plan of 1993, formulated by a task force led by First Lady Hillary Clinton, was unable to pass in part due to the filibuster. As early as April 1993, a memo to the task force noted that “While the substance is obviously controversial, there is apparently great disquiet in the Capitol over whether we understand the interactivity between reconciliation and health, procedurally, and in terms of timing and counting votes for both measures….”[63]

George W. Bush

In 2001, President George W. Bush was unable to obtain any Democratic support for his tax cut proposals. As a result, the Bush tax cuts of 2001 and 2003 were each passed using reconciliation, which required that the tax cuts expire within the 10-year budget window to avoid violating the Byrd rule in the Senate. The status of the tax cuts would remain unresolved until the late 2012 ” fiscal cliff,” with a significant portion of the cuts being made permanent by the American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012, passed by a Republican Congress and signed by President Barack Obama.

Barack Obama

In 2009-10, President Barack Obama briefly enjoyed an effective 60-vote Democratic majority (including independents) in the Senate during the 111th Congress. During that time period, the Senate passed the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, commonly known as the ACA or “Obamacare,” on Dec. 24, 2009 by a vote of 60-39 (after invoking cloture by the same 60-39 margin). However, Obama’s proposal to create a public health insurance option was removed from the health care legislation because it could not command 60-vote support.

House Democrats did not approve of all aspects of the Senate bill, but after 60-vote Senate control was permanently lost in February 2010 due to the election of Scott Brown to fill the seat of the late Ted Kennedy, House Democrats decided to pass the Senate bill intact and it became law. Several House-desired modifications to the Senate bill — those sufficient to pass scrutiny under the Byrd rule — were then made under reconciliation via the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010, which was enacted days later following a 56-43 vote in the Senate.

The near-60-vote Senate majority that Democrats held throughout the 111th Congress was also critical to passage of other major Obama initiatives, including the American Reinvestment and Recovery Act of 2009 (passed 60-38, two Republicans voting yes)[citation needed]and the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (passed 60-39, three Republicans voting yes, one Democrat voting no).[citation needed] However, the House-passed American Clean Energy and Security Act, which would have created a cap-and-trade system and established a national renewable electricity standard to combat climate change, never received a Senate floor vote with Majority Leader Harry Reid saying “it’s easy to count to 60.”[64]

Donald Trump

In 2017, President Donald Trump and the 115th Congress pursued a strategy to use an FY17 reconciliation bill to repeal Obamacare, followed by an FY18 reconciliation bill to pass tax reform. A budget reconciliation strategy was pursued since nearly all Democrats were expected to oppose these policies, making a filibuster threat insurmountable due to the 60-vote requirement.

An FY17 budget resolution that included reconciliation instructions for health care reform was passed by the Senate by a 51-48 vote on January 12, 2017,[65] and by the House on a 227-198 vote the following day.[66] The House later passed the American Health Care Act of 2017 as the FY17 budget reconciliation bill by a vote of 217-213 on May 4, 2017. In July, the Senate Parliamentarian ruled that certain provisions of the House bill must be stricken (as “extraneous” non-budgetary matter) under the Byrd rule before proceeding under reconciliation.[67] The Parliamentarian later ruled that an FY17 reconciliation bill must be adopted by end of FY17, establishing a September 30th deadline.[68] Senate Republicans were unable to obtain 51 votes for any health care reconciliation bill before the deadline, and the FY17 budget resolution expired.

An FY18 budget resolution that included reconciliation instructions for tax reform was passed by the Senate by a 51-49 vote on October 19, 2017,[69] and by the House on a 216-212 vote on October 26, 2017.[70] It permitted raising the deficit by $1.5 trillion over ten years and opening drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, the latter to help secure the eventual vote of Alaska Sen. Lisa Murkowski who voted against FY17 health care reconciliation legislation. The Senate later passed the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 (unofficial title) as the FY18 reconciliation bill by a 51-48 vote on December 20, 2017,[71] with final passage by the House on a 224-201 vote later that day.[72] Due to the budget resolution’s cap of $1.5 trillion in additional deficits over 10 years, plus Byrd rule limits on adding deficits beyond 10 years, the corporate tax cut provisions were made permanent while many of the individual tax cuts expire after 2025.

Process for limiting or eliminating the filibuster

According to the Supreme Court‘s ruling in United States v. Ballin (1892), Senate rules can be changed by a simple majority vote. Nevertheless, under current Senate rules, a rule change could itself be filibustered, requiring two-thirds of senators who are present and voting to end debate. (This differs from the usual requirement for three-fifths of sworn senators.)[1]

However, despite this two-thirds requirement being written into the Senate rules, any Senator may attempt to nullify a Senate rule by making a point of order that the rule is unconstitutional or just that the meaning of the rule should not be followed. The presiding officer is generally expected to rule in favor of the rules of the Senate, but any ruling from the chair may be appealed and overturned by a simple majority of Senators. This happened in 2013, when Harry Reid of the Democratic Party made a point of order that “the vote on cloture under rule XXII for all nominations other than for the Supreme Court of the United States is by majority vote.” Although there is no simple majority vote provision in the text of rule XXII,[73] Reid’s point of order was sustained by a 52-48 vote, and that ruling established a Senate precedent that cloture on nominations other than those for the Supreme Court requires only a simple majority.[1] On April 6, 2017, that precedent was further changed by Mitch McConnell and the Republican majority to include Supreme Court nominations.[74][75]

Other forms of filibuster

While talking out a measure is the most common form of filibuster in the Senate, other means of delaying and killing legislation are available. Because the Senate routinely conducts business by unanimous consent, one member can create at least some delay by objecting to the request. In some cases, such as considering a bill or resolution on the day it is introduced or brought from the House, the delay can be as long as a day.[76] However, because this is a legislative day, not a calendar day, the majority can mitigate it by briefly adjourning.[77]

In many cases, an objection to a request for unanimous consent will compel a vote. While forcing a single vote may not be an effective delaying tool, the cumulative effect of several votes, which take at least 15 minutes apiece, can be substantial. In addition to objecting to routine requests, senators can force votes through motions to adjourn and through quorum calls. Quorum calls are meant to establish the presence or absence of a constitutional quorum, but senators routinely use them to waste time while waiting for the next speaker to come to the floor or for leaders to negotiate off the floor. In those cases, a senator asks for unanimous consent to dispense with the quorum call. If another senator objects, the clerk must continue to call the roll of senators, just as they would with a vote. If a call shows no quorum, the minority can force another vote by moving to request or compel the attendance of absent senators. Finally, senators can force votes by moving to adjourn, or by raising specious points of order and appealing the ruling of the chair.

The most effective methods of delay are those that force the majority to invoke cloture multiple times on the same measure. The most common example is to filibuster the motion to proceed to a bill, then filibuster the bill itself. This forces the majority to go through the entire cloture process twice in a row. If, as is common, the majority seeks to pass a substitute amendment to the bill, a further cloture procedure is needed for the amendment.

The Senate is particularly vulnerable to serial cloture votes when it and the House have passed different versions of the same bill and want to go to conference (i.e., appoint a special committee of both chambers to merge the bills). Normally, the majority asks for unanimous consent to:

  • Insist on its amendment(s), or disagree with the House’s amendments
  • Request, or agree to, a conference
  • Authorize the presiding officer to appoint members of the special committee

If the minority objects, those motions are debatable (and therefore subject to a filibuster) and divisible (meaning the minority can force them to be debated, and filibustered, separately).[76] Additionally, after the first two motions pass, but before the third does, senators can offer an unlimited number of motions to give the special committee members non-binding instructions, which are themselves debatable, amendable, and divisible.[78] As a result, a determined minority can cause a great deal of delay before a conference.

Longest filibusters

Below is a table of the ten longest filibusters to take place in the United States Senate since 1900.

Longest filibusters in the U.S. Senate since 1900[79][80]
Senator Date (began) Measure Hours & minutes
1 Strom Thurmond (DSC) August 28, 1957 Civil Rights Act of 1957 24:18
2 Alfonse D’Amato (RNY) October 17, 1986 Defense Authorization Act (1987), amendment 23:30
3 Wayne Morse (IOR) April 24, 1953 Submerged Lands Act (1953) 22:26
4 Ted Cruz (RTX) September 24, 2013 Continuing Appropriations Act (2014) 21:18
5 Robert M. La Follette, Sr. (RWI) May 29, 1908 Aldrich–Vreeland Act (1908) 18:23
6 William Proxmire (DWI) September 28, 1981 Debt ceiling increase (1981) 16:12
7 Huey Long (DLA) June 12, 1935 National Industrial Recovery Act (1933), amendment 15:30
8 Jeff Merkley (DOR) April 4, 2017 Neil Gorsuch Supreme Court confirmation 15:28
9 Alfonse D’Amato (RNY) October 5, 1992 Revenue Act (1992), amendment 15:14
10 Chris Murphy (DCT) June 15, 2016 Nominally H.R. 2578; supporting gun control measures 14:50

See also

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filibuster_in_the_United_States_Senate

In politics, as of today, do you consider yourself a Republican, a Democrat or an independent?
Trend since 2004
Republicans Independents Democrats
% % %
2018 Feb 1-10 28 42 27
2018 Jan 2-7 22 44 32
2017 Dec 4-11 25 46 27
2017 Nov 2-8 25 42 30
2017 Oct 5-11 24 42 31
2017 Sep 6-10 29 40 30
2017 Aug 2-6 28 41 28
2017 Jul 5-9 25 45 28
2017 Jun 7-11 26 42 30
2017 May 3-7 29 40 28
2017 Apr 5-9 25 44 28
2017 Mar 1-5 26 42 30
2017 Feb 1-5 31 37 31
2017 Jan 4-8 28 44 25
2016 Dec 7-11 28 39 29
2016 Nov 9-13 27 40 30
2016 Nov 1-6 27 36 31
2016 Oct 5-9 27 36 32
2016 Sep 14-18 27 40 32
2016 Sep 7-11 29 38 31
2016 Aug 3-7 27 38 31
2016 Jul 13-17 28 42 28
2016 Jun 14-23 28 39 31
2016 Jun 1-5 27 41 30
2016 May 18-22 27 45 28
2016 May 4-8 31 37 30
2016 Apr 6-10 25 44 31
2016 Mar 2-6 26 38 32
2016 Feb 3-7 30 37 30
2016 Jan 21-25 29 39 31
2016 Jan 6-10 26 44 29
2015 Dec 2-6 27 40 30
2015 Nov 4-8 28 39 30
2015 Oct 7-11 25 42 29
2015 Sep 9-13 27 43 27
2015 Aug 5-9 27 41 31
2015 Jul 8-12 23 46 28
2015 Jun 2-7 25 41 31
2015 May 6-10 26 41 30
2015 Apr 9-12 24 42 31
2015 Mar 6-9 27 44 28
2015 Feb 8-11 25 43 29
2015 Jan 5-8 29 42 28
2014 Dec 8-11 27 40 31
2014 Nov 6-9 28 41 28
2014 Oct 29-Nov 2 26 39 32
2014 Oct 12-15 33 35 29
2014 Sep 25-30 26 42 30
2014 Sep 4-7 25 47 26
2014 Aug 7-10 26 40 31
2014 Jul 7-10 23 45 29
2014 Jun 5-8 24 46 28
2014 May 8-11 24 43 31
2014 Apr 24-30 23 43 32
2014 Apr 3-6 25 42 29
2014 Mar 6-9 25 42 30
2014 Feb 6-9 23 45 30
2014 Jan 5-8 24 45 29
2013 Dec 5-8 24 44 30
2013 Nov 7-10 23 46 28
2013 Oct 3-6 20 47 30
2013 Sep 5-8 22 45 31
2013 Aug 7-11 24 43 31
2013 Jul 10-14 25 42 31
2013 Jun 20-24 26 41 31
2013 Jun 1-4 26 41 31
2013 May 2-7 28 39 32
2013 Apr 4-14 26 40 33
2013 Mar 7-10 27 36 35
2013 Feb 7-10 28 38 32
2013 Jan 7-10 27 38 33
2012 Dec 27-30 27 36 34
2012 Dec 19-22 25 35 38
2012 Dec 14-17 25 39 34
2012 Nov 26-29 29 37 31
2012 Nov 15-18 27 38 32
2012 Nov 9-12 28 38 33
2012 Nov 1-4 30 33 35
2012 Sep 24-27 28 38 32
2012 Sep 6-9 27 36 35
2012 Aug 20-22 28 41 31
2012 Aug 9-12 26 42 29
2012 Jul 19-22 28 41 30
2012 Jul 9-12 27 41 30
2012 Jun 7-10 30 39 30
2012 May 10-13 27 44 29
2012 May 3-5 28 38 32
2012 Apr 9-12 29 41 29
2012 Mar 8-11 27 42 30
2012 Feb 16-19 27 43 29
2012 Feb 2-5 27 43 29
2012 Jan 5-8 27 42 30
2011 Dec 15-18 30 42 27
2011 Nov 28-Dec 1 25 45 28
2011 Nov 3-6 27 35 36
2011 Oct 6-9 26 41 31
2011 Sep 15-18 21 46 32
2011 Sep 8-11 25 44 30
2011 Aug 11-14 28 44 26
2011 Aug 4-7 24 42 34
2011 Jul 12-15 25 42 30
2011 Jul 7-10 29 39 30
2011 Jun 9-12 30 38 29
2011 May 5-8 29 37 32
2011 Apr 20-23 31 36 32
2011 Apr 7-11 26 42 30
2011 Mar 25-27 25 40 32
2011 Mar 3-6 29 39 29
2011 Feb 2-5 28 40 31
2011 Jan 14-16 28 42 28
2011 Jan 7-9 29 37 31
2010 Dec 10-12 33 34 32
2010 Nov 19-21 29 40 29
2010 Nov 4-7 26 41 31
2010 Oct 28-31 29 36 32
2010 Oct 21-24 29 34 33
2010 Oct 14-17 30 36 30
2010 Oct 7-10 30 34 33
2010 Sep 30-Oct 3 29 37 30
2010 Sep 23-26 30 34 32
2010 Sep 13-16 30 41 28
2010 Aug 27-30 28 41 30
2010 Aug 5-8 29 40 30
2010 Jul 27-Aug 1 30 37 31
2010 Jul 8-11 26 40 30
2010 Jun 11-13 28 33 36
2010 May 24-25 28 40 30
2010 May 3-6 30 36 32
2010 Apr 8-11 26 42 29
2010 Mar 26-28 28 40 31
2010 Mar 4-7 29 39 30
2010 Feb 1-3 27 40 33
2010 Jan 8-10 28 36 34
2009 Dec 11-13 29 36 33
2009 Oct 16-19 25 41 32
2009 Oct 1-4 27 38 33
2009 Sep 11-13 26 40 33
2009 Aug 31-Sep 2 28 36 35
2009 Aug 6-9 28 35 35
2009 Jul 17-19 26 39 33
2009 Jul 10-12 29 33 37
2009 Jun 14-17 29 37 32
2009 May 29-31 26 37 35
2009 May 7-10 32 34 32
2009 Apr 20-21 27 36 36
2009 Apr 6-9 24 40 35
2009 Mar 27-29 28 35 35
2009 Mar 5-8 25 35 38
2009 Feb 20-22 27 36 34
2009 Feb 9-12 29 36 33
2009 Jan 30-Feb 1 27 35 36
2009 Jan 9-11 30 33 36
2008 Dec 12-14 26 35 37
2008 Dec 4-7 27 33 37
2008 Nov 13-16 26 35 39
2008 Nov 7-9 28 37 33
2008 Oct 23-26 33 32 34
2008 Oct 10-12 30 33 35
2008 Oct 3-5 27 38 33
2008 Sep 26-27 28 35 35
2008 Sep 8-11 32 31 35
2008 Sep 5-7 30 34 35
2008 Aug 21-23 27 37 36
2008 Aug 7-10 31 32 35
2008 Jul 25-27 29 33 36
2008 Jul 10-13 27 35 35
2008 Jun 15-19 30 35 34
2008 Jun 9-12 29 36 33
2008 May 30-Jun1 26 36 37
2008 May 8-11 27 35 37
2008 May 1-3 27 37 36
2008 Apr 18-20 25 38 36
2008 Apr 6-9 26 35 37
2008 Mar 14-16 29 33 38
2008 Mar 6-9 28 37 34
2008 Feb 21-24 29 34 36
2008 Feb 11-14 26 34 40
2008 Feb 8-10 28 34 37
2008 Jan 30-Feb 2 29 36 35
2008 Jan 10-13 28 38 34
2008 Jan 4-6 30 35 34
2007 Dec 14-16 27 39 33
2007 Dec 6-9 30 36 32
2007 Nov 30-Dec 2 28 41 31
2007 Nov 11-14 27 38 33
2007 Nov 2-4 25 41 34
2007 Oct 12-14 24 43 31
2007 Oct 4-7 28 38 32
2007 Sep 14-16 28 38 33
2007 Sep 7-8 26 41 32
2007 Aug 13-16 28 40 30
2007 Aug 3-5 27 43 30
2007 Jul 12-15 29 37 32
2007 Jul 6-8 25 43 31
2007 Jun 11-14 27 38 34
2007 Jun 1-3 31 36 31
2007 May 10-13 27 38 34
2007 May 4-6 27 40 33
2007 Apr 13-15 29 36 34
2007 Apr 2-5 30 36 34
2007 Mar 23-25 29 36 33
2007 Mar 11-14 31 35 32
2007 Mar 2-4 27 37 35
2007 Feb 9-11 26 41 32
2007 Feb 1-4 26 37 35
2007 Jan 15-18 30 32 36
2007 Jan 12-14 28 40 32
2007 Jan 5-7 27 42 31
2006 Dec 11-14 30 34 35
2006 Dec 8-10 29 36 34
2006 Nov 9-12 24 40 35
2006 Nov 2-5 31 32 34
2006 Oct 20-22 29 34 35
2006 Oct 9-12 28 35 34
2006 Oct 6-8 29 31 38
2006 Sep 15-17 31 34 34
2006 Sep 7-10 30 33 35
2006 Aug 18-20 33 32 34
2006 Aug 7-10 31 31 36
2006 Jul 28-30 32 29 38
2006 Jul 21-23 29 37 33
2006 Jul 6-9 31 33 34
2006 Jun 23-26 26 36 37
2006 Jun 9-11 35 27 37
2006 Jun 1-4 30 35 34
2006 May 12-13 30 36 34
2006 May 8-11 29 35 34
2006 May 5-7 29 37 32
2006 Apr 28-30 30 35 34
2006 Apr 10-13 31 33 35
2006 Apr 7-9 31 33 35
2006 Mar 13-16 28 36 33
2006 Mar 10-12 32 33 34
2006 Feb 28-Mar 1 32 31 35
2006 Feb 9-12 30 39 31
2006 Feb 6-9 33 34 30
2006 Jan 20-22 32 32 34
2006 Jan 9-12 34 34 31
2006 Jan 6-8 34 33 32
2005 Dec 19-22 29 36 32
2005 Dec 16-18 31 36 32
2005 Dec 9-11 30 38 31
2005 Dec 5-8 36 31 31
2005 Nov 17-20 33 30 34
2005 Nov 11-13 31 34 34
2005 Nov 7-10 32 33 33
2005 Oct 28-30 32 37 30
2005 Oct 24-26 33 30 35
2005 Oct 21-23 34 33 33
2005 Oct 13-16 30 33 36
2005 Sep 26-28 32 34 33
2005 Sep 16-18 30 33 36
2005 Sep 12-15 30 37 31
2005 Sep 8-11 33 34 32
2005 Aug 28-30 32 32 35
2005 Aug 22-25 29 34 35
2005 Aug 8-11 33 30 35
2005 Aug 5-7 33 35 31
2005 Jul 25-28 28 37 33
2005 Jul 22-24 32 31 36
2005 Jul 7-10 30 33 35
2005 Jun 29-30 29 31 38
2005 Jun 24-26 33 32 34
2005 Jun 16-19 33 31 34
2005 Jun 6-8 33 34 31
2005 May 23-26 33 34 31
2005 May 20-22 29 33 36
2005 May 2-5 35 30 34
2005 Apr 29-May 1 34 34 31
2005 Apr 18-21 35 29 35
2005 Apr 1-2 35 33 31
2005 Mar 21-23 32 29 37
2005 Mar 18-20 35 31 32
2005 Mar 7-10 35 31 32
2005 Feb 25-27 38 27 34
2005 Feb 21-24 37 31 29
2005 Feb 7-10 34 30 35
2005 Feb 4-6 37 35 28
2005 Jan 14-16 33 36 30
2005 Jan 7-9 35 29 36
2005 Jan 3-5 37 27 35
2004 Dec 17-19 33 30 35
2004 Dec 5-8 37 29 32
2004 Nov 19-21 38 31 30
2004 Nov 7-10 38 27 35
2004 Oct 29-31 34 27 37
2004 Oct 22-24 35 29 36
2004 Oct 14-16 38 29 33
2004 Oct 11-14 33 32 35
2004 Oct 9-10 35 30 34
2004 Oct 1-3 36 27 37
2004 Sep 24-26 39 28 31
2004 Sep 13-15 37 29 33
2004 Sep 3-5 37 29 34
2004 Aug 23-25 35 32 32
2004 Aug 9-11 36 29 34
2004 Jul 30-Aug 1 35 28 36
2004 Jul 19-21 37 28 34
2004 Jul 8-11 35 27 36
2004 Jun 21-23 32 33 34
2004 Jun 3-6 33 31 35
2004 May 21-23 33 31 34
2004 May 7-9 32 32 33
2004 May 2-4 32 31 36
2004 Apr 16-18 32 32 34
2004 Apr 5-8 34 30 34
2004 Mar 26-28 36 30 32
2004 Mar 8-11 31 35 33
2004 Mar 5-7 33 31 35
2004 Feb 16-17 30 39 31
2004 Feb 9-12 32 35 32
2004 Feb 6-8 33 36 30
2004 Jan 29-Feb 1 31 35 33
2004 Jan 12-15 32 33 34
2004 Jan 9-11 33 35 31
2004 Jan 2-5 32 40 28
GALLUP
(Asked of independents) As of today, do you lean more to the Democratic Party or the Republican Party?
Figures are combined party identifiers + leaners
Republicans + Republican leaners Democrats + Democratic leaners
% %
2018 Feb 1-10 46 44
2018 Jan 2-7 35 50
2017 Dec 4-11 41 45
2017 Nov 2-8 39 46
2017 Oct 5-11 39 46
2017 Sep 6-10 45 47
2017 Aug 2-6 43 46
2017 Jul 5-9 40 48
2017 Jun 7-11 43 49
2017 May 3-7 45 44
2017 Apr 5-9 41 48
2017 Mar 9-29 38 47
2017 Mar 1-5 41 49
2017 Feb 1-5 43 48
2017 Jan 4-8 44 43
2016 Dec 7-11 41 42
2016 Nov 9-13 43 48
2016 Nov 1-6 43 46
2016 Oct 5-9 40 44
2016 Sep 14-18 44 49
2016 Sep 7-11 44 45
2016 Aug 3-7 41 48
2016 Jul 13-17 43 43
2016 Jun 14-23 42 48
2016 Jun 1-5 41 48
2016 May 18-22 47 46
2016 May 4-8 43 47
2016 Apr 6-10 41 49
2016 Mar 2-6 40 48
2016 Feb 3-7 43 46
2016 Jan 21-25 42 48
2016 Jan 6-10 44 45
2015 Dec 2-6 41 46
2015 Nov 4-8 42 44
2015 Oct 7-11 43 44
2015 Sep 9-13 45 44
2015 Aug 5-9 43 45
2015 Jul 8-12 41 47
2015 Jun 2-7 43 45
2015 May 6-10 42 45
2015 Apr 9-12 38 47
2015 Mar 6-9 44 42
2015 Feb 8-11 43 44
2015 Jan 5-8 44 43
2014 Dec 8-11 41 45
2014 Nov 6-9 47 41
2014 Oct 29-Nov 2 41 46
2014 Oct 12-15 47 41
2014 Sep 25-30 44 48
2014 Sep 4-7 47 42
2014 Aug 7-10 42 46
2014 Jul 7-10 40 42
2014 Jun 5-8 44 44
2014 May 8-11 40 47
2014 Apr 24-30 41 48
2014 Apr 3-6 41 43
2014 Mar 6-9 42 47
2014 Feb 6-9 40 47
2014 Jan 5-8 40 45
2013 Dec 5-8 42 44
2013 Nov 7-10 39 45
2013 Oct 3-6 38 48
2013 Sep 5-8 41 47
2013 Aug 7-11 41 44
2013 Jul 10-14 40 46
2013 Jun 20-24 43 46
2013 Jun 1-4 43 46
2013 May 2-7 41 48
2013 Apr 4-14 40 49
2013 Mar 7-10 41 48
2013 Feb 7-10 42 48
2013 Jan 7-10 40 49
2012 Dec 27-30 39 47
2012 Dec 19-22 36 53
2012 Dec 14-17 41 49
2012 Nov 26-29 44 46
2012 Nov 15-18 39 50
2012 Nov 9-12 40 50
2012 Nov 1-4 42 50
2012 Sep 24-27 43 50
2012 Sep 6-9 42 51
2012 Aug 20-22 46 49
2012 Aug 9-12 41 44
2012 Jul 19-22 47 45
2012 Jul 9-12 41 46
2012 Jun 7-10 42 44
2012 May 10-13 45 46
2012 May 3-5 41 47
2012 Apr 9-12 43 47
2012 Mar 8-11 41 46
2012 Feb 16-19 45 45
2012 Feb 2-5 44 45
2012 Jan 5-8 44 47
2011 Dec 15-18 45 45
2011 Nov 28-Dec 1 43 43
2011 Nov 3-6 41 50
2011 Oct 6-9 45 43
2011 Sep 15-18 40 49
2011 Sep 8-11 48 44
2011 Aug 11-14 47 40
2011 Aug 4-7 44 50
2011 Jul 12-15 42 47
2011 Jul 7-10 47 44
2011 Jun 9-12 47 42
2011 May 5-8 43 46
2011 Apr 20-23 46 46
2011 Apr 7-11 46 43
2011 Mar 25-27 42 46
2011 Mar 3-6 45 43
2011 Feb 2-5 44 49
2011 Jan 14-16 47 43
2011 Jan 7-9 45 44
2010 Dec 10-12 48 44
2010 Nov 19-21 49 42
2010 Nov 4-7 44 47
2010 Oct 28-31 43 44
2010 Oct 21-24 43 45
2010 Oct 14-17 45 43
2010 Oct 7-10 43 44
2010 Sep 30-Oct 3 43 44
2010 Sep 23-26 44 43
2010 Sep 13-16 48 42
2010 Aug 27-30 47 45
2010 Aug 5-8 43 44
2010 Jul 27-Aug 1 44 42
2010 Jul 8-11 41 46
2010 Jun 11-13 42 47
2010 May 24-25 43 48
2010 May 3-6 45 44
2010 Apr 8-11 42 46
2010 Mar 26-28 46 46
2010 Mar 4-7 44 45
2010 Feb 1-3 45 46
2010 Jan 8-10 43 48
2009 Dec 11-13 43 49
2009 Oct 16-19 41 47
2009 Oct 1-4 43 46
2009 Sep 11-13 43 47
2009 Aug 31-Sep 2 43 49
2009 Aug 6-9 43 47
2009 Jul 17-19 41 48
2009 Jul 10-12 42 50
2009 Jun 14-17 41 48
2009 May 29-31 39 48
2009 May 7-10 45 45
2009 Apr 20-21 39 50
2009 Apr 6-9 34 53
2009 Mar 27-29 40 51
2009 Mar 5-8 35 53
2009 Feb 20-22 39 51
2009 Feb 9-12 39 51
2009 Jan 30-Feb 1 38 53
2009 Jan 9-11 41 51
2008 Dec 12-14 35 52
2008 Dec 4-7 39 51
2008 Nov 13-16 37 55
2008 Nov 7-9 40 51
2008 Oct 23-26 45 48
2008 Oct 10-12 41 52
2008 Oct 3-5 40 50
2008 Sep 26-27 40 50
2008 Sep 8-11 43 50
2008 Sep 5-7 47 48
2008 Aug 21-23 40 53
2008 Aug 7-10 40 50
2008 Jul 25-27 41 48
2008 Jul 10-13 37 47
2008 Jun 15-19 40 51
2008 Jun 9-12 41 49
2008 May 30-Jun1 39 53
2008 May 8-11 40 52
2008 May 1-3 42 53
2008 Apr 18-20 39 56
2008 Apr 6-9 36 55
2008 Mar 14-16 41 53
2008 Mar 6-9 38 53
2008 Feb 21-24 38 53
2008 Feb 11-14 38 54
2008 Feb 8-10 39 54
2008 Jan 30-Feb 2 40 51
2008 Jan 10-13 39 52
2008 Jan 4-6 39 51
2007 Dec 14-16 38 52
2007 Dec 6-9 41 44
2007 Nov 30-Dec 2 42 48
2007 Nov 11-14 35 49
2007 Nov 2-4 38 54
2007 Oct 12-14 39 52
2007 Oct 4-7 40 48
2007 Sep 14-16 39 54
2007 Sep 7-8 38 52
2007 Aug 13-16 41 47
2007 Aug 3-5 40 48
2007 Jul 12-15 40 49
2007 Jul 6-8 37 53
2007 Jun 11-14 37 53
2007 Jun 1-3 42 48
2007 May 10-13 39 52
2007 May 4-6 41 49
2007 Apr 13-15 42 52
2007 Apr 2-5 42 49
2007 Mar 23-25 41 51
2007 Mar 11-14 41 48
2007 Mar 2-4 39 52
2007 Feb 9-11 40 52
2007 Feb 1-4 37 54
2007 Jan 15-18 38 52
2007 Jan 12-14 41 53
2007 Jan 5-7 40 53
2006 Dec 11-14 40 53
2006 Dec 8-10 40 50
2006 Nov 9-12 34 56
2006 Nov 2-5 39 49
2006 Oct 20-22 39 54
2006 Oct 9-12 38 48
2006 Oct 6-8 37 56
2006 Sep 15-17 42 50
2006 Sep 7-10 40 51
2006 Aug 18-20 43 48
2006 Aug 7-10 39 51
2006 Jul 28-30 40 52
2006 Jul 21-23 39 49
2006 Jul 6-9 40 49
2006 Jun 23-26 38 55
2006 Jun 9-11 42 50
2006 Jun 1-4 43 50
2006 May 12-13 39 48
2006 May 8-11 40 48
2006 May 5-7 38 49
2006 Apr 28-30 40 54
2006 Apr 10-13 39 50
2006 Apr 7-9 41 53
2006 Mar 13-16 38 48
2006 Mar 10-12 41 52
2006 Feb 28-Mar 1 41 50
2006 Feb 9-12 42 49
2006 Feb 6-9 44 45
2006 Jan 20-22 42 51
2006 Jan 9-12 44 46
2006 Jan 6-8 45 48
2005 Dec 19-22 39 47
2005 Dec 16-18 43 48
2005 Dec 9-11 43 48
2005 Dec 5-8 44 46
2005 Nov 17-20 41 48
2005 Nov 11-13 41 52
2005 Nov 7-10 44 46
2005 Oct 28-30 42 47
2005 Oct 24-26 41 50
2005 Oct 21-23 45 49
2005 Oct 13-16 39 52
2005 Sep 26-28 43 47
2005 Sep 16-18 38 53
2005 Sep 12-15 44 48
2005 Sep 8-11 44 47
2005 Aug 28-30 42 50
2005 Aug 22-25 38 50
2005 Aug 8-11 44 45
2005 Aug 5-7 44 46
2005 Jul 25-28 39 51
2005 Jul 22-24 43 49
2005 Jul 7-10 41 50
2005 Jun 29-30 37 51
2005 Jun 24-26 42 49
2005 Jun 16-19 43 47
2005 Jun 6-8 45 45
2005 May 23-26 43 43
2005 May 20-22 40 51
2005 May 2-5 45 48
2005 Apr 29-May 1 44 47
2005 Apr 18-21 43 49
2005 Apr 1-2 46 46
2005 Mar 21-23 42 50
2005 Mar 18-20 48 43
2005 Mar 7-10 46 46
2005 Feb 25-27 48 45
2005 Feb 21-24 46 43
2005 Feb 7-10 44 50
2005 Feb 4-6 52 41
2005 Jan 14-16 45 46
2005 Jan 7-9 43 49
2005 Jan 3-5 45 48
2004 Dec 17-19 45 48
2004 Dec 5-8 48 45
2004 Nov 19-21 50 43
2004 Nov 7-10 48 48
2004 Oct 29-31 44 49
2004 Oct 22-24 46 49
2004 Oct 14-16 50 46
2004 Oct 11-14 46 48
2004 Oct 9-10 46 48
2004 Oct 1-3 45 49
2004 Sep 24-26 50 44
2004 Sep 13-15 47 47
2004 Sep 3-5 49 46
2004 Aug 23-25 46 46
2004 Aug 9-11 47 47
2004 Jul 30-Aug 1 46 49
2004 Jul 19-21 46 47
2004 Jul 8-11 43 49
2004 Jun 21-23 43 50
2004 Jun 3-6 43 49
2004 May 21-23 42 49
2004 May 7-9 42 50
2004 May 2-4 44 50
2004 Apr 16-18 44 48
2004 Apr 5-8 44 48
2004 Mar 26-28 46 45
2004 Mar 8-11 42 49
2004 Mar 5-7 44 50
2004 Feb 16-17 43 50
2004 Feb 9-12 45 48
2004 Feb 6-8 46 47
2004 Jan 29-Feb 1 44 51
2004 Jan 12-15 43 49
2004 Jan 9-11 45 46
2004 Jan 2-5 48 46
GALLUP

 

 

The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts Portfolio

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1048-1049

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1041-1047

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1033-1040

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1023-1032

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1017-1022

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1010-1016

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1001-1009

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 993-1000

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 984-992

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 977-983

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 970-976

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 963-969

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 955-962

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 946-954

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 938-945

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 926-937

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 916-925

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 906-915

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 889-896

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 884-888

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 878-883

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 870-877

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 864-869

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 857-863

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 850-856

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 845-849

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 840-844

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 833-839

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 827-832

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 821-826

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 815-820

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 806-814

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 800-805

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 793-799

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 785-792

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 777-784

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 769-776

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 759-768

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 751-758

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 745-750

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 738-744

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 732-737

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 727-731

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 720-726

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or DownloadShows 713-719

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or DownloadShows 705-712

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 695-704

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 685-694

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 675-684

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 668-674

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 660-667

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 651-659

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 644-650

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 637-643

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 629-636

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 617-628

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 608-616

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 599-607

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 590-598

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 585- 589

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 575-584

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 565-574

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 556-564

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 546-555

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 538-545

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 532-537

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 526-531

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 519-525

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 510-518

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 500-509

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 490-499

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 480-489

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 473-479

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 464-472

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 455-463

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 447-454

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 439-446

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 431-438

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 422-430

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 414-421

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 408-413

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 400-407

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 391-399

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 383-390

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 376-382

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 369-375

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 360-368

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 354-359

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 346-353

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 338-345

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 328-337

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 319-327

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 307-318

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 296-306

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 287-295

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 277-286

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 264-276

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 250-263

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 236-249

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 222-235

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 211-221

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 202-210

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 194-201

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 184-193

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 174-183

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 165-173

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 158-164

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 151-157

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 143-150

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 135-142

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 131-134

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 124-130

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 121-123

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 118-120

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 113 -117

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 112

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 108-111

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 106-108

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 104-105

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 101-103

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 98-100

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 94-97

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 93

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 92

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 91

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 88-90

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 84-87

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 79-83

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 74-78

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 71-73

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 68-70

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 65-67

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 62-64

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 58-61

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 55-57

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 52-54

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 49-51

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 45-48

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 41-44

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 38-40

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 34-37

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 30-33

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 27-29

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 17-26

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 16-22

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 10-15

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1-9

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

The Pronk Pops Show 1044, March 7, 2018, Story 1: Attorney General Session To Sanctuary State California — Aiding and Abetting The Illegal Alien Invasion of United States Is A Crime — Obey The Law or Else — Videos — Story 2: Do The Right Thing — Restore The American’s People Confidence in The FBI and Department of Justice By Appointing A Second Special Counsel To Investigate and Prosecute The Crimes Committed By The Clinton Obama Democrat Conspiracy To Spy On American People — Videos —

Posted on March 8, 2018. Filed under: 2016 Presidential Campaign, 2016 Presidential Candidates, American History, Barack H. Obama, Bill Clinton, Blogroll, Breaking News, Bribery, Bribes, Business, Cartoons, Communications, Congress, Constitutional Law, Corruption, Countries, Crime, Culture, Deep State, Donald J. Trump, Donald J. Trump, Donald Trump, Donald Trump, Drugs, Economics, Education, Elections, Empires, Employment, Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and Department of Justice (DOJ), Federal Government, First Amendment, Fiscal Policy, Former President Barack Obama, Fourth Amendment, Free Trade, Freedom of Speech, Gangs, Government, Government Dependency, Government Spending, High Crimes, Hillary Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Hillary Clinton, History, House of Representatives, Illegal Immigration, James Comey, Jerry Brown, Labor Economics, Language, National Security Agency, News, Obama, People, Philosophy, Photos, Pistols, Politics, Polls, President Trump, Presidential Appointments, Public Corruption, Radio, Raymond Thomas Pronk, Rifles, Robert S. Mueller III, Rule of Law, Scandals, Second Amendment, Security, Senate, Senator Jeff Sessions, Social Networking, Spying, Spying on American People, Success, Surveillance and Spying On American People, Surveillance/Spying, Tax Policy, Terror, Terrorism, Unemployment, United States Constitution, United States of America, Videos, Violence, War, Wealth, Weapons, Weather, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |

 Project_1

The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts

Pronk Pops Show 1044, March 7, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1043, March 6, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1042, March 1, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1041, February 28, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1040, February 27, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1039, February 26, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1038, February 23, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1037, February 22, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1036, February 21, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1035, February 16, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1034, February 15, 2018  

Pronk Pops Show 1033, February 14, 2018  

Pronk Pops Show 1032, February 13, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1031, February 12, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1030, February 9, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1028, February 7, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1027, February 2, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1026, February 1, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1025, January 31, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1024, January 30, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1023, January 29, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1022, January 26, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1021, January 25, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1020, January 24, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1019, January 18, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1018, January 17, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1017, January 16, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1016, January 10, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1015, January 9, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1014, January 8, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1013, December 13, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 1012, December 12, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 1011, December 11, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 1010, December 8, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 1009, December 7, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 1008, December 1, 2017

See the source imageSee the source imageSee the source image

See the source image

See the source image

See the source image

See the source image

See the source image

See the source imageSee the source imageSee the source image

 Story 1: Attorney General Session To Sanctuary State California — Aiding and Abetting The Illegal Alien Invasion of United States — Obey The Law or Else — Videos –

Watch U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions take on California’s immigration policies

Sessions calls out California on immigration after announcing DOJ lawsuit

Tucker: Democrats have become the anti-border party

DOJ takes on California over sanctuary status

Hannity: California officials willing to risk American lives

Gov. Jerry Brown: Sessions ‘sowing discord’ instead of proposing immigration reform

California governor calls DOJ lawsuit a ‘political stunt’

1995: Barbara Jordan on “Immigration Reform”

President Trump says he shares immigration views with Barbara Jordan

WATCH: Atty. Gen. Sessions discusses sanctuary cities in Sacramento, CA

America’s Sources of Immigration (1850-Today)

Immigration by the Numbers — Off the Charts

How Many Illegal Aliens Are in the US? – Walsh – 1

How Many Illegal Aliens Are in the US? – Walsh – 2

President Trump’s ‘four pillars’ of new immigration plan

President Trump statement on immigration, green card reform with Sen Tom Cotton, Sen David Perdue

Trump Endorses Bill to Limit Green Card Immigration

Donald Trump explains his immigration plan

Trump: I want an immigration policy that benefits Americans

Trump on immigration: ‘We either have a country or we don’t’

2016 GOP contenders take different stances on immigration

Obama’s Amnesty & How Illegal Immigration Affects Us

President Obama’s Speech on Amnesty For Illegal Immigrants

The 2020 Census is at risk. Here are the major consequences

California leaders rebuke Sessions as ‘going to war’ over state immigration policy

He arrived a day after suing California over its laws to shield immigrants living in the state illegally  

A long-simmering battle between the Trump administration and California over immigration boiled over Wednesday, with Atty. Gen. Jeff Sessions deriding the state’s “irrational, unfair and unconstitutional policies” and Gov. Jerry Brown accusing the federal government of launching “a reign of terror.”

“This is basically going to war against the state of California,” Brown declared.

As the Justice Department formally filed a legal challenge to state immigration laws, Sessions told a gathering of law enforcement officers in Sacramento that California was attempting to keep federal immigration officials from doing their jobs, and he charged Democrats with advancing the political agendas of “radical extremists.”

He took particular aim at Oakland Mayor Libby Schaaf, who had warned immigrant communities about recent federal raids in the Bay Area, and at Lt. Gov. Gavin Newsom, for praising her actions.

“So here’s my message to Mayor Schaaf: How dare you?” Sessions said of the Brown protege. “Contrary to what you may hear from open-borders radicals, we are not asking California, Oakland or anyone else to actively, effectively enforce immigration laws.”

The remarks drew protests and sharp rebukes from state leaders, underscoring huge rifts over the role of law enforcement in federal immigration policy.

President Trump has made restricting immigration a central focus of his agenda and has frequently criticized California for resistance to his calls to increase deportations. On Wednesday, the White House confirmed that Trump would make his first visit to California since becoming president next week, to assess prototypes for the border wall he wants built between California and Mexico and to attend a GOP fundraiser.

California Democratic leaders and the state’s top law enforcement officer responded with war talk of their own, describing Sessions’ actions as unprecedented. In fiery tweets, speeches and at a news conference at the Capitol, the Democrats said the Justice Department lawsuit is based on lies and challenges California’s sovereignty.

The governor called Sessions’ actions a political stunt, aimed at distracting the public from guilty pleas made by Trump’s advisors in special counsel Robert S. Mueller III’s ongoing investigation of Russian interference in the 2016 election.

“Let’s face it, the Trump White House is under siege,” Brown said. “Obviously, the attorney general has found it hard just to be a normal attorney general. He’s been caught up in the whirlwind of Trumpism … [and is] initiating a reign of terror.”

State Senate President Pro Tem Kevin de León (D-Los Angeles), author of one of the laws targeted by the legal challenge, accused Sessions of having ideology based on “white supremacy and white nationalism.”

De León said he is directing former U.S. Atty. Gen. Eric H. Holder Jr., under contract to provide legal advice to the state Senate, to help formulate a response to submit in court. On a conference call with reporters, Holder said legal precedent makes clear that the federal government cannot insist that a state use its resources to enforce federal immigration law.

“From my perspective, the Trump administration’s lawsuit is really a political and unconstitutional attack on the state of California’s well-established rights under our system of government,” Holder said.

The three laws administration officials seek to challenge make it a crime for business ownersto voluntarily help federal agents find and detain undocumented workers, prohibit local law enforcement from alerting immigration agents when detainees are released from custody and create a state inspection program for federal immigration detention centers.

Administration officials allege the laws, passed by the Legislature last year and signed by Brown, blatantly obstruct federal immigration law and thus violate the Constitution’s supremacy clause, which gives federal law precedence over state enactments.

State Atty. Gen. Xavier Becerra has pledged to defend the measures in court, saying they work in concert with federal laws. “Our teams work together to go after drug dealers, to combat gang violence, to take down sex-trafficking rings, and we have no intention of changing that,” he said Wednesday.

In his speech to more than 100 police chiefs, sheriffs and other law enforcement officers, Sessions argued that the Trump administration did not reject immigration, but said the U.S. should not reward those who unlawfully enter the country with benefits, such as legal status, food stamps and work permits.

He said the federal government sued California to invalidate and immediately freeze what he called unjust laws.

“We are going to fight these irrational, unfair and unconstitutional policies that have been imposed on you and our federal officers,” Sessions said as he finished his speech to the California Peace Officers Assn., and some officers stood in ovation. “You can be certain about this: We have your back, and you have our thanks.”

As the group welcomed Sessions with applause, a statewide coalition of immigrant rights groups gathered outside to protest his arrival.

The lawsuit and Sessions’ visit are the latest volley in an escalating battle between the Trump administration and Democratic leaders in California, where laws have been passed to extend healthcare, driver’s licenses and education to some of the more than 2.3 million immigrants living in the state illegally.

The event is usually a time for law enforcement officers to mingle with lawmakers, lobby for legislation and receive guidance from leaders on law enforcement priorities across the state. But Sessions’ appearance swept the attention away.

Police officers said the state’s immigration laws had not impeded their jobs so far, but the constant battles between state and federal leaders were affecting their relationships with federal partners.

Fairfield Police Chief Randy Fenn said the lawsuit raised concerns about whether law enforcement agencies would be caught in the middle of a larger immigration battle.

“We are waiting to see how this shakes out,” Fenn said.

Neil Gallucci, second vice president of the state peace officers group, said Sessions’ opinion was important to understand as the federal lawsuit had the potential to change California laws.

“Atty. Gen. Sessions is the top law enforcement officer in the United States of America,” Gallucci said. “It would be foolish for us not to listen to where we may be headed and to understand what all the issues are. That is what this forum is for.”

Though the state government’s foray into immigration issues has drawn criticism outside California in recent months, it has broad support within the state. A January poll by the nonpartisan Public Policy Institute of California found 58% of likely voters wanted state and local immigration action. Among all adults, support rose to 65% of those surveyed.

Law enforcement officials have been divided on the issue. The most contested of the statutes — the so-called sanctuary state law — limits state and local law enforcement agencies from using any resources to hold, question or share information about people with federal immigration agents, unless they have violent or serious criminal convictions.

For many officers across the state, that won’t change much of their daily work. Some police and sheriff’s agencies already have developed similar restrictions on working with immigration agents, either through their own policies or under local “sanctuary city” rules.

The California Police Chiefs Assn. moved its official position from opposed to neutral after final changes to the bill, but the California State Sheriffs’ Assn. remained opposed.

Outside Sessions’ speech Wednesday, a few hundred people gathered to protest. Right before the speech began, protesters spilled out onto a major street, blocking traffic, and then marched around the building.

Maria Isabel Serrano, 46, from Imperial County, said the attorney general should focus on violent crimes, not immigration.

“This is the only place where we have a sanctuary,” Serrano said in Spanish. “This lawsuit is uncalled for.”

The protests are perhaps just a preview of what’s to come. Trump will make his first trip to California on Tuesday, the White House announced. He will view border wall prototypes in San Diego and raise money at a high-dollar fundraiser in Beverly Hills.

Times staff writers John Myers and Seema Mehta contributed to this report.

http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-pol-ca-sanctuary-state-sessions-lawsuit-20180307-story.html

eff Sessions’s lawsuit against California’s “sanctuary” laws, explained

California tried to make it harder for ICE to round up immigrants. So the federal government is suing the state.

Erin Schaff-Pool/Getty Images

On Wednesday, Attorney General Jeff Sessions is visiting California to sue it.

The Department of Justice has just filed a lawsuit against the state over three laws it passed in 2017 that limit government officials’ and employers’ ability to help federal immigration agents, and that give California the power to review conditions in facilities where immigrants are being detained by the feds. Sessions, in a Wednesday speech to the California Peace Officers’ Association, a law enforcement union, is giving the message in person.

It’s a huge escalation of the Trump administration’s fight against “sanctuary cities” that limit local-federal cooperation on immigration enforcement. After a year of slow-moving or unsuccessful attempts to block “sanctuary” jurisdictions from getting federal grants, Sessions is moving to stop them from passing laws that limit cooperation to begin with. And he’s starting with a shot across the bow: targeting the bluest state in the union, whose 2017 bills represented a model for progressives to use federalism against the Trump administration’s immigration agenda.

California, like any other “sanctuary” jurisdiction, isn’t stopping Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents from being able to arrest, detain, or deport immigrants. In fact, ICE has already responded to the 2017 laws in its own way — by escalating raids in California and claiming that the state’s sanctuary laws force ICE to get more aggressive in its tactics.

Sessions’s lawsuit, legally speaking, is about ensuring that the feds can use any tool in the toolbox of federal immigration enforcement policy, without any restrictions from progressive cities and states. Politically speaking, it’s the next phase in a battle the Trump administration and California are equally enthusiastic about having: an ongoing culture war between progressive politicians who feel a duty to make their immigrant residents feel as safe as possible, and an administration (and its backers) whose stated policy is that no unauthorized immigrant should feel safe.

The lawsuit is mostly a fight to let government employees and business owners cooperate with ICE if they want

The administration’s new lawsuit doesn’t address all of California’s restrictions on cooperation — including some of the “sanctuary” policies that Sessions and other Trump administration officials have complained the most about (like limits on when local jail officials can agree to hold unauthorized immigrants for 48 hours after they’d otherwise be released so federal agents can pick them up).

Instead, it aims at pieces of three different laws California passed last year: one that strictly limits law enforcement cooperation with ICE, one restricting what employers can do when ICE engages in workplace raids, and one about reviews of immigration detention facilities.

Here’s the rundown:

SB 54 (California Values Act): the “sanctuary” law. The Trump administration is suing to allow local law enforcement officials in California to do two things that SB 54 now prevents them from doing: 1) tell federal agents when an immigrant will be released from jail or prison, or give them other “nonpublic” personal information other than the immigrant’s immigration status; and 2) transfer immigrants directly into federal custody from local jails without a warrant from a judge for their arrest (though local officials are allowed to do this if an immigrant has committed certain serious crimes).

The Trump administration argues that the restrictions on what local officials can tell federal ones about a detained immigrant violate federal law — specifically, a provision that bars local and state governments from telling their officials not to share information about “the immigration status … of any individual.” This is the same provision the Trump administration has been using in its attempts to block “sanctuary” jurisdictions from getting federal grants.

California argues that sharing information about when someone will be released from jail or prison is different from sharing information about their “immigration status” itself, so it’s legal for the state to put restrictions on the former. That argument has been upheld by a federal judge in the state — though, notably, not in the same district where the Justice Department is suing.

(Ironically, the ruling that refusing to share release dates didn’t violate federal law came in a civil lawsuit filed against the city of San Francisco by the parents of Kate Steinle, whose murder has become a cause célèbre for immigration hawks including President Trump himself.)

The Justice Department is also arguing that California is restricting federal immigration enforcement by requiring a warrant from a judge to take an immigrant into custody, claiming that federal immigration law was designed to use civil “warrants” from the executive branch (since being in the US without papers is a civil offense, and deportation is technically a civil punishment, rather than criminal).

AB 103: the detention review law. The DOJ is suing to strike down a law that requires the California attorney general to review any facility where immigrants are being detained by federal agents while waiting for an immigration court date or their deportation (or where unaccompanied minors are being held while waiting to be placed with a relative).

The lawsuit argues that where immigrants are detained is a “law-enforcement decision” and California is improperly interfering with it; it also complains that California isn’t placing these restrictions on any other local or federal agency and is targeting immigration enforcement.

AB 450: the workplace-raid law. Just like the DOJ is suing to let law enforcement cooperate more broadly with federal agents with its challenge to SB 54, it’s suing to let employers cooperate with federal agents during workplace raids or audits. The feds are suing to strike down provisions that prevent employers from letting ICE agents access “nonpublic areas” of the workplace during raids or giving ICE agents access to employee records without a judicial warrant. (Though ICE agents would still be allowed to look over an employer’s I-9 files, the form to verify an employee’s ability to work in the US legally.)

And it’s suing to stop employers from having to notify their employees within 72 hours of getting a notice of inspection of I-9 files from ICE and notify them again within 72 hours of getting the results if the employee has been flagged in the system as working illegally.

The DOJ argues that these restrictions “have the purpose and effect of interfering with the enforcement of the [federal] prohibition on working without authorization.”

In the federal government’s view, “California has no lawful interest in assisting removable aliens to evade federal law enforcement.” But California, of course, argues it does: that protecting the safety and well-being of California residents means forcing ICE to meet higher standards of due process before engaging in actions that can affect not only unauthorized immigrants but legal immigrants and US citizens. And this is where the real divide lies.

California’s laws haven’t kept out ICE. They’ve just made ICE officials angrier.

The term “sanctuary” gives the totally misleading impression that cities and states can stop ICE from entering, or from arresting immigrants. They can’t. The laws that immigration hawks have traditionally labeled “sanctuary” policies — a label that, in the wake of the 2016 election, some progressives and Democrats have embraced — are designed to make it harder for the federal government to use local governments as leverage in immigration enforcement.

So when those laws pass, ICE has to do things the hard way: tracking down immigrants after they’re released from jail, for example, instead of just picking them up directly.

That sort of ICE activity is more visible — and often more disruptive to immigrants’ daily lives. When the Trump administration has been criticized for its aggressive immigration tactics, like arresting immigrants in courthouses or in their driveways, it has blamed “sanctuary cities” for forcing them to.

But the Trump administration has also made a point to hype enforcement in “sanctuary” jurisdictions as a way to send a message that immigrants are not safe there. So even as the Justice Department sues California for making it too hard to enforce immigration law, ICE is as visible in the state as ever.

The workplace-raids law the DOJ is suing over didn’t stop ICE from raiding several 7-Eleven franchises in California in January, armed with notices to inspect their I-9 forms. Nor did California’s laws stop ICE from arresting more than 150 immigrants in a massive “sweep” in Northern California in February, including some who allege they were approached at random in public by an ICE agent and asked for their papers (something ICE generally denies it does).

The Trump administration has vocally criticized California officials for trying to impede ICE — it was furious with Oakland Mayor Libby Schaaf for alerting the public that the February sweep was coming, for example. But it’s important to understand that the lawsuit isn’t really about ICE’s abilities, but rather about making it easier for the agency to do its job — or, to put it another way, it’s about how many tools ICE has in its immigration enforcement toolbox.

And it’s also, just like the stepped-up raids, another way to remind immigrants that no matter who calls California a “sanctuary,” it can’t really protect immigrants from deportation.

This is a fight both sides are eager to have

Sessions isn’t just going to Sacramento at random. He’s announcing the lawsuit at the convention of the California Peace Officers’ Association — which lobbied against SB 54 and which, according to its executive director, invited Sessions to provide some “clarity” about how local police could work with federal agents in general in the wake of the law.

In reality, law enforcement agents and officials in California (like the rest of America) have been divided on local cooperation with immigration enforcement: Some of them oppose laws like California’s because they hinder officers’ power to decide how to do their jobs, while others want to make sure immigrants aren’t scared out of reporting crimes by worrying local police will turn them over to ICE.

But picking a fight with Democratic politicians — especially in liberal-caricature California — on behalf of cops is the best possible frame for the Trump administration politically. Ever since the presidential primary, Trump has gotten leverage out of attacking “sanctuary cities” for harboring criminals. It’s allowed him to use his favorite theme — that immigrants are criminal and dangerous — while attacking his political opponents.

The legal prospects of the new lawsuit aren’t very good in the short term. Even if the DOJ prevails in the district court, it’ll have to go through the liberal (and presidentially antagonized) Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Politically, though, it’s less important that the Trump administration wins this fight than that it’s picking it at all — it’s reminding its base who the good guys and bad guys are.

Of course, that’s also true for the California government — it’s just that the “good guy” and “bad guy” labels are reversed. California has all but courted a lawsuit from the Trump administration. Attorney General Xavier Becerra left a promising career in the House of Representatives to lead the legal resistance on the West Coast.

Officials have barely bothered to conceal their glee at the news that they’re being sued. “BRING IT ON!” wrote Kevin de León (the state legislator who wrote SB 54) in a Facebook post. Gov. Jerry Brown tweeted at the attorney general: “Jeff, these political stunts may be the norm in Washington, but they don’t work here. SAD!!!”

This isn’t just about the electoral optics for California Democrats in a majority-minority state, in a midterm that could finally push out some of the state’s remaining congressional Republicans. It’s also about the message being sent to immigrants — for Democrats and the administration alike.

The fight over “sanctuary” policies is ultimately a fight over whether fear is a useful tool in immigration enforcement or an evil that can poison whole communities. The official position of the Trump administration is that any unauthorized immigrant in the US should be “looking over [her] shoulder” and worried that ICE will come after her at any time. The biggest change to policy under Trump hasn’t been the scope of deportations or even of arrests — it’s been the aggressive messaging that anyone could be next.

Local and state officials who see unauthorized immigrants as part of their own communities, and who are concerned about the effects that targeting unauthorized immigrants will have on their legal immigrant neighbors and US citizen children, are trying to combat that fear. Laws that force ICE to put more effort into arresting and detaining immigrants are one way to do that. Simply sending the message that some politicians are looking out for immigrants and fighting for them is another — probably not as effective, but something nonetheless.

Fighting in court over California’s laws allows both sides to send the message they want. But in the meantime, ICE will keep working to make sure that its presence is felt in the state, “sanctuary” or no.

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/3/7/17088144/california-lawsuit-sanctuary-immigration-law-doj

 

Story 2: Do The Right Thing — Restore The American’s People Confidence in The FBI and Department of Justice By Appointing A Second Special Counsel To Investigate and Prosecute The Crimes Committed By The Clinton Obama Democrat Conspiracy To Spy On American People — Videos —

Congressman Biggs Renews His Call for a Second Special Counsel

Gowdy: Special counsel necessary to investigate FBI process

Judge Napolitano On Gowdy And Goodlatte ‘s Call For Second Special Counsel

GOP lawmakers call for second special counsel over FISA abuse claims

Hannity 03/06/18 9PM | March 06, 2018 Breaking News

Republicans push for Jeff Sessions to appoint second special counsel

Problems GOP may face with starting second special counsel

Gowdy, Goodlatte make case for second independent counsel

The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts Portfolio

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1041-1044

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1033-1040

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1023-1032

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1017-1022

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1010-1016

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1001-1009

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 993-1000

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 984-992

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 977-983

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 970-976

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 963-969

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 955-962

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 946-954

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 938-945

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 926-937

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 916-925

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 906-915

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 889-896

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 884-888

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 878-883

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 870-877

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 864-869

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 857-863

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 850-856

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 845-849

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 840-844

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 833-839

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 827-832

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 821-826

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 815-820

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 806-814

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 800-805

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 793-799

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 785-792

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 777-784

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 769-776

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 759-768

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 751-758

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 745-750

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 738-744

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 732-737

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 727-731

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 720-726

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or DownloadShows 713-719

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or DownloadShows 705-712

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 695-704

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 685-694

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 675-684

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 668-674

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 660-667

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 651-659

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 644-650

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 637-643

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 629-636

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 617-628

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 608-616

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 599-607

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 590-598

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 585- 589

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 575-584

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 565-574

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 556-564

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 546-555

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 538-545

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 532-537

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 526-531

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 519-525

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 510-518

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 500-509

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 490-499

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 480-489

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 473-479

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 464-472

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 455-463

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 447-454

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 439-446

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 431-438

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 422-430

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 414-421

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 408-413

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 400-407

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 391-399

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 383-390

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 376-382

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 369-375

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 360-368

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 354-359

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 346-353

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 338-345

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 328-337

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 319-327

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 307-318

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 296-306

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 287-295

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 277-286

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 264-276

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 250-263

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 236-249

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 222-235

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 211-221

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 202-210

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 194-201

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 184-193

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 174-183

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 165-173

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 158-164

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 151-157

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 143-150

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 135-142

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 131-134

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 124-130

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 121-123

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 118-120

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 113 -117

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 112

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 108-111

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 106-108

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 104-105

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 101-103

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 98-100

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 94-97

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 93

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 92

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 91

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 88-90

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 84-87

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 79-83

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 74-78

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 71-73

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 68-70

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 65-67

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 62-64

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 58-61

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 55-57

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 52-54

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 49-51

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 45-48

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 41-44

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 38-40

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 34-37

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 30-33

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 27-29

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 17-26

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 16-22

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 10-15

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1-9

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

The Pronk Pops Show 1041, February 28, 2018, Story 1: Mr. Magoo aka Attorney General Jeff Sessions Gets A Clue from President Trump — Appoint Special Counsel to Prosecute FISA Abuses and Politically Corrupt Hillary Clinton Email Investigation Now! — Videos — Story 2: Trump Take Guns Before Due Process Comment Betrays Bill of Rights Voter Base — In Your Heart You Know He Is Nuts  — Never Mind — Governments Many Failures in Parkland Florida Shootings — American People Have The Absolute Right To Defend Themselves Against Tyrants, Criminals and Nuts —  Videos — Story 3: Hope Dumps Trump — Tired of Abuse? — Bridge over Troubled Water — Sounds of Silence — Videos

Posted on March 1, 2018. Filed under: Addiction, American History, Applications, Assault, Blogroll, Breaking News, Business, Cartoons, College, Communications, Computers, Congress, Constitutional Law, Corruption, Countries, Crime, Culture, Defense Spending, Donald J. Trump, Donald J. Trump, Donald Trump, Education, Elections, Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), Federal Government, First Amendment, Foreign Policy, Fourth Amendment, Freedom of Speech, Government, Government Dependency, Government Spending, Hate Speech, Health, Hillary Clinton, History, Homicide, House of Representatives, Housing, Human, Human Behavior, Illegal Drugs, Independence, Investments, Killing, Knifes, Language, Law, Life, Lying, Media, National Interest, Networking, News, People, Philosophy, Photos, Pistols, Politics, Polls, President Trump, Progressives, Public Corruption, Public Relations, Rand Paul, Raymond Thomas Pronk, Rifles, Rule of Law, Scandals, Second Amendment, Security, Senate, Sexual Harrasment, Social Networking, Success, Surveillance and Spying On American People, Surveillance/Spying, Taxation, Taxes, Ted Cruz, Terror, Terrorism, Treason, Trump Surveillance/Spying, United States Constitution, United States of America, United States Supreme Court, Videos, Violence, War, Wealth, Weapons, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |

 Project_1

The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts

Pronk Pops Show 1041, February 28, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1040, February 27, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1039, February 26, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1038, February 23, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1037, February 22, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1036, February 21, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1035, February 16, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1034, February 15, 2018  

Pronk Pops Show 1033, February 14, 2018  

Pronk Pops Show 1032, February 13, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1031, February 12, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1030, February 9, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1028, February 7, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1027, February 2, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1026, February 1, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1025, January 31, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1024, January 30, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1023, January 29, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1022, January 26, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1021, January 25, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1020, January 24, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1019, January 18, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1018, January 17, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1017, January 16, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1016, January 10, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1015, January 9, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1014, January 8, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1013, December 13, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 1012, December 12, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 1011, December 11, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 1010, December 8, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 1009, December 7, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 1008, December 1, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 1007, November 28, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 1006, November 27, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 1005, November 22, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 1004, November 21, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 1003, November 20, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 1002, November 15, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 1001, November 14, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 1000, November 13, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 999, November 10, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 998, November 9, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 997, November 8, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 996, November 6, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 995, November 3, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 994, November 2, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 993, November 1, 2017

See the source imageSee the source image

See the source imageSee the source image

See the source imageSee the source image

See the source imageSee the source image

See the source imageSee the source image

See the source image

See the source imageSee the source imageSee the source image

See the source image

See the source image

See the source image

Story 1: Mr. Magoo aka Attorney General Jeff Sessions Gets A Clue from President Trump — Appoint Special Counsel to Prosecute FISA Abuses and Politically Corrupt Hillary Clinton Email Investigation Now! — Videos —

FBI withholds Obama, Comey secret meeting documents

DOJ should assign second special counsel to investigate FISA abuses: Rep. Jordan

Judge Napolitano on Trump’s public criticism of Sessions

Trump slams AG Jeff Sessions over surveillance abuse probe

Jeff Sessions fires back at Trump after insult

YES! FINALLY – POTUS Trump SETS to FIRE Jeff sessions! Watch

Hannity: It is time for Jeff Sessions to do his job

DOJ will investigate FISA abuse allegations, Jeff Sessions says

FBI Violated Criminal Statutes in FISA Application to Spy on Trump Dupe, the Most Goofy Carter Page

DOJ should assign second special counsel to investigate FISA abuses: Rep. Jordan

Jeff Sessions needs to remain as attorney general: Karl Rove

Trump lashes out against Attorney General Jeff Sessions

Trump refers to Sessions as ‘Mr. Magoo.’ Who is the character?

Trump Calls Jeff Sessions ‘Mr. Magoo’ Behind His Back

DOJ won’t rule out special counsel to probe Uranium One deal

Congressmen call for a special counsel to probe Clinton

Published on Nov 14, 2017

Jeff Sessions’ future as attorney general in doubt?

Mr Magoo Opening Theme

Mr Magoo – Military Magoo – VCD

Trump Keeps Ripping “Mr. Magoo” Jeff Sessions

Sessions: I plan to continue as attorney general

Trump has public falling out with Attorney General Jeff Sessions

Tucker: Trump’s attack on Sessions useless, self-destructive

Sessions: I’m confident I made the right decision to recuse

President Obama Surprises Joe Biden With Medal of Freedom

 9 of Barack Obama and Joe Biden’s Best Bromance Moments

Ted Cruz Questioning of FBI Director James Comey

Fmr. FBI Assistant Director: Comey should have resigned

Former assistant FBI director slams Comey’s recommendation

Giuliani: Dissapointed in FBI’s Comey

Rep. Hurd Destroys Dem Partisanship at Comey Hearing

Jason Chaffetz Digs in on Comey at Start of Capitol Hearing: ‘We Are Mystified and Confused’

Rep. Blum Questions FBI Director Comey During House OGR Hearing

Rep. Jordan: There’s a different standard for politically connected

Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH) Q/A with FBI Director James Comey

Rep. Mark Walker Questions FBI Director Comey on Clinton Investigation

Palmer Questioning FBI Director Comey

FBI: Clinton ‘not sophisticated’ with classifie…

Rep. Matt Cartwright questions FBI director James Comey about classified headers

Rep Massie Questions FBI Director Comey about Clinton Emails 7/7/16

Trey Gowdy GRILLS James Comey On Hillary Clinton Emails 7/7/16

Full Event: FBI Director James Comey testifies before Congress about Hillary Clinton email (7-7-16)

FBI Director James Comey FULL STATEMENT on Hillary Clinton Email Investigation (C-SPAN)

Published on Jul 5, 2016

President Barack Obama endorses Hillary Clinton for president | Hillary Clinton

Published on Jun 9, 2016

Joe Biden says he is not running for president

Published on Oct 21, 2015

 

A group of 13 Republican lawmakers have signed on to a letter asking Attorney General Jeff Sessions to appoint a second special counsel to investigate concerns they have with the Justice Department and FBI.The lawmakers say this special counsel would look into agency leadership decisions to end the investigation into Hillary Clinton’s unauthorized private email server, the circumstances surrounding the genesis of the Trump-Russia investigation, and allegations in a recently released House Intelligence Committee memo regarding government surveillance of former Trump campaign adviser Carter Page.
 “It’s simple: We’ve learned deeply concerning information on FISA abuses, the dossier, former high-level FBI officials, and more—and it stinks to high heaven. Americans deserve the truth,” tweeted Rep. Mark Meadows, R-N.C., the chair of the House Freedom Caucus and one of the signees of the letter.

Many Republicans in recent months have sounded the alarm about potential bias in the DOJ and FBI.

Exacerbating those concerns, the House Intelligence Committee memo asserted that the “Trump dossier,” which contains salacious and unverified claims about Trump’s ties to Russia, was an “essential” part of the surveillance application to spy on Page. However, the Democratic rebuttal memo, released in redacted form over the weekend, said it “played no role” in the FBI launching its Russia probe, which is now led by special counsel Robert Mueller.

The Democratic memo, however, did leave some other concerns raised by the GOP memo, spearheaded by House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes, R-Calif., unanswered.

While the lawmakers who signed on to the letter say, on balance, the employees of the agencies do admirable work, a special counsel is needed to weed out the bad ones.

“We acknowledge with immense gratitude that nearly every single man and woman in the DOJ and FBI conducts themselves daily with integrity, independence, patriotism, objectivity and commitment to the rule of law,” the lawmakers wrote. “That is why this Special Counsel is of the utmost importance to ensure that these historic, legendary and necessary agencies move forward more respected and effective than ever before.”

 The letter comes one day after Sessions said that his Justice Department’s inspector general will investigate the alleged abuses of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act — a move condemned by President Trump on Wednesday.

“Why is A.G. Jeff Sessions asking the Inspector General to investigate potentially massive FISA abuse,” Trump tweeted. “Will take forever, has no prosecutorial power and already late with reports on Comey etc. Isn’t the I.G. an Obama guy? Why not use Justice Department lawyers? DISGRACEFUL!”

Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., the top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, responded to that tweet, questioning why a FISA investigation is needed at all.

“More important question: Why is the AG asking for a FISA investigation at all? DOJ and FBI already said the Nunes memo was inaccurate, misleading and extraordinarily reckless. With no evidence of abuse, only explanation is political pressure,” Schiff

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/13-republicans-ask-jeff-sessions-to-appoint-second-special-counsel-to-investigate-fbi-doj/article/2650335

 

Sessions Has No Choice But To Appoint A Special Counsel To Investigate DOJ, FBI

Americans should be reassured that the federal law enforcement agencies are working to keep America safer rather than focused on revenge against political enemies.

By Mollie Hemingway

It is long past time for Attorney General Jeff Sessions to appoint a special counsel to investigate the possibility of widespread and systematic corruption, obstruction, leaking, and collusion within America’s law enforcement and intelligence agencies. The leadership of the FBI and Department of Justice have made clear, through their ongoing obstruction of congressional investigations and oversight, that these agencies simply can not be trusted to investigate or police themselves.

Robert S. Mueller III was appointed as a special counsel to make sure that any investigation into alleged collusion between Russia and the Trump campaign was independent and impartial. In the same way, it is necessary for an independent special counsel to investigate alleged corruption at the FBI and Department of Justice, so the American public can once again be assured that the federal law enforcement agencies are in fact working to keep America safer rather than focused on getting revenge against political enemies.

To recap, we’ve seen the following startling developments in just the past few days:

  • The revelation that two key FBI agents, Peter Strzok and Lisa Page, sent each other more than 50,000 texts about their work, including regarding the Clinton and Russia probes. Strzok, the former deputy assistant director of the Counterintelligence Division, ran the Clinton investigation and interviewed key witnesses. He was also involved in the Russia investigation.
  • That five months of texts between these agents are missing. The bureau claims, in the latest of strange coincidences affecting the investigation, that a technical error resulted in a failure to capture these important texts.
  • The suspicious timing of the missing texts — from shortly after the election to the day that Mueller was named special counsel. These months were full of leaks from intelligence officials about the Russia probe.
  • That these 50,000-plus texts aren’t even all of their texts, but just those related to the ongoing Office of Inspector General investigation. The FBI and DOJ are not sharing texts that are personal or about other cases. Since the Office of Inspector General hasn’t said it’s reviewing Russia or dossier-related cases, that leaves a lot of texts yet to be disclosed and examined by investigators.
  • Communications about not keeping texts.
  • A text from the day after the 2016 election suggesting the need for the first meeting of a “secret society.”
  • The revelation that a Senate committee has a whistleblower who has shared information about secret off-site meetings.
  • Political considerations in the timing and handling of the Clinton probe.
  • Political considerations in the handling of the Trump probe.
  • Strzok admitting before he joined the Mueller probe, but after he’d worked on the Russia probe for the better part of a year, that to his knowledge there was nothing there.
  • That the “professor” “friend” James Comey leaked classified information to, for the purpose of it being leaked to the media to spur a special counsel, is suddenly claiming to be Comey’s attorney, which can be used as a shield from releasing information.
  • That Comey’s implausible claim to have waited until after interviewing Hillary Clinton to decide to let her off the hook for mishandling classified information is contradicted by additional available evidence.
  • That Attorney General Loretta Lynch only made her claim that she would defer to the FBI on prosecuting Clinton because she knew Comey would let her off, according to Page.
  • The existence of a four-page memo compiled by the House Select Permanent Committee on Intelligence alleging surveillance abuse by the FBI against Trump affiliates.

These revelations are not wild speculation but based on concrete evidence that the FBI and DOJ fought tooth and nail against releasing.

Previous months saw startling allegations about the use of a scurrilous dossier to secure a wiretap against a Trump affiliate, the use of that dossier to brief congressional committees, the leaking of the existence of the dossier despite its lack of corroboration, statements that the FBI probe was an “insurance policy” because “we can’t take that risk” that Trump would be elected, and that the dossier itself was funded by Hillary Clinton and the Democratic National Committee. There were also criminal leaks of top-secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) communications. This to say nothing of the widespread unmasking, distribution, and illegal leaking of surveillance information.

It is vital to a democratic republic that the public have faith in their law enforcement institutions. All of these developments feed the perception that there are two different law enforcement regimes — one for friends, and one for enemies. There are clear signs that Clinton benefited from a different set of rules that applied to her that didn’t apply to anyone else. There are also signs that people in federal agencies improperly used spy powers to spin up investigations and special counsels to go after political enemies.

That can’t happen.

Why A Second Special Counsel?

The current special counsel probably should have been investigating the FBI and DOJ as part of his charge into the Russia probe. Mueller has been on the case since May, and should have seen enough shortly thereafter to be concerned about various agencies’ handling of the probes.

But it also shouldn’t be surprising that he has not done much, if anything, to probe the FBI and DOJ. Mueller is the former head of the FBI and very close to Comey. Nobody can be expected to investigate his own friends and family, and asking Mueller to seriously tackle the problems that have been revealed regarding his friends at his old agency is unrealistic.

Similarly, an investigation into all these allegations can’t be done by a U.S. attorney, because it has to be removed from the oversight of those who have run the department for the last several years, since they will be the ones being investigated.

Schiff’s Case For a Special Counsel

Even Democrats have been making a good case for a special counsel, however inadvertently. When asked on CNN why the American public couldn’t just see the House Intelligence Committee memo alleging surveillance abuses, Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., said Americans couldn’t handle it without knowing the underlying information that was too sensitive to release. He also suggested that public demand to see the memo, which has been high, was actually just another Russian operation. That turned out to be false.

But if it’s true that controversial information about the FBI’s handling of the Russia probe is too sensitive and could be misconstrued — so sensitive that Schiff voted to keep the rest of Congress in the dark about it and is fighting to make sure the public doesn’t see this information — that means it’s important enough to demand a special prosecutor.

The Leakers’ Case For a Special Counsel

As damaging and discrediting news about “potential corruption at highest levels” came out this week, leaks about the Mueller investigation started coming out. These included that FBI Director Christopher Wray reportedly threatened to resign; that Sessions was interviewed by the Mueller probe, that Mueller is ready to interview Trump, that Russian bots are the real culprits behind public demand to see the surveillance memo, that Trump reportedly asked controversial FBI official Andrew McCabe who McCabe voted for, and various other items.

These leaks tend to happen when bad news threatens the Mueller probe. But they’re perhaps ill-advised, only suggesting all the more to the politicized nature of the current investigation. A special counsel should not be seen as a threat to the Mueller probe but as a necessary help.

An investigation into potential corruption will help preserve or restore confidence in the Mueller investigation. If the results of the Mueller investigation are to be taken seriously, these questions have to be addressed. High-ranking FBI agents are in their own words undermining the entire purpose of the Mueller investigation, such as when Strzok said there’s nothing to the Russia probe prior to joining the special counsel team. Or when he had to be kicked off the team because of how his texts pointed to corruption.

Because the Mueller investigation itself was brought about by a Democratic National Committee and Hillary Clinton-funded opposition research document, which the FBI used despite it not being verified, as well as Comey’s leaks of classified information in retaliation for being fired, the entire investigation has a cloud over it. A special counsel could clear the air or provide clarity regarding the trustworthiness of the Mueller probe. A failure to investigate these charges would damage the country’s ability to have any objective investigation into abuses of power in the future.

Does Sessions Care About Charges Of Corruption At DOJ?

Congressional investigators and concerned citizens are growing alarmed. Sen. Lindsey Graham, Sen. Ron Johnson, Rep. Ron DeSantis, Rep. Jim Jordan, Rep. Lee Zeldin, Rep. Mark Meadows, and many other informed members of Congress have called for a second special counsel to deal with allegations of corruption at the Department of Justice.

The political and media arms of the Democratic Party attempt to downplay the scandal, but it’s only getting worse with each new piece of information that is brought to light. The American people need to know that the attorney general cares about the charges, wants to get to the bottom of the problems, and will work to restore the integrity of this important department. The criminalization of politics in this country is undermining confidence in the republic itself.

If there are good explanations for all of these strange coincidences and lapses in judgment, the American people need to be told. If there is systematic corruption, that needs to be learned as well.

A special counsel who is not part of the current club at the top of these agencies should be appointed. The individual needs to be unimpeachable and a person of integrity who has the strength to take on an incalcitrant bureaucracy and establishment. He or she should have experience in investigating and rooting out corruption in bureaucratic agencies.

http://thefederalist.com/2018/01/24/sessions-has-no-choice-but-to-appoint-a-special-counsel-to-investigate-doj-fbi/

 

Story 2: Trump Take Guns Before Due Process Comment Betrays Bill of Rights Voter Base — In Your Heart You Know He Is Nuts  — Never Mind — Governments Many Failures in Parkland Florida Shootings — American People Have The Absolute Right To Defend Themselves Against Tyrants, Criminals and Nuts —  Videos

Gun control measures proposed by Trump

Trump: Take the guns first, go through due process second

President Trump Meets with Bipartisan Members of Congress to Discuss School and Community Safety

Trump tells senators: ‘You’re afraid of the NRA’

Watch Dianne Feinstein Erupt With Glee After Trump Seems to Endorse Her Assault Weapons Ban

Tucker: Trump betraying core campaign promises on guns

Tucker: Assault weapons ban will not stop mass killings

Trump talks gun control with bipartisan group of lawmakers

Loesch: Trump’s gun control meeting was good TV, bad policy

Cornyn: Gun meeting with Trump was ‘brainstorming session’

Judge Nap: Trump’s Comments on Due Process Represent What Gun Owners & the NRA Fear Most

Republicans Freak Out As Trump Says He’s Coming To Take Their Guns Away

Dan Bongino reacts to Trump’s ‘take the guns first’ comment

Trump: Take People’s Guns Away!

Trump Suggest Taking Guns Before Due Process Of Law

Trump criticized for ‘take the firearms first’ comments

Trump: Take the guns first, go through due process second

Donald Trump supports right to own assault weapons (CNN interview with Chris Cuomo)

“Common Sense” Gun Control Debunked! (Man-On-Street)

 

NRA turns on Trump: Gun lobby says president’s meeting with lawmakers was ‘great TV but bad policy’ after he suggested taking guns before due process

  • National Rifle Association blasted President Donald Trump’s proposals for gun control during a bipartisan meeting at the White House on Wednesday 
  • Trump heard directly from lawmakers leading the charge for new gun violence prevention measures this afternoon at the White House
  • Wednesday’s session was attended by Reoublicans and Democrats, including Sens. Dianne Feinstein of California and Chris Murphy of Connecticut
  • Listening session is directly tied to a school shooting in Parkland, Florida two weeks ago today that resulted in 17 deaths  
  • Trump has been meeting with stakeholders in the gun control debate for a week 
  • White House says he will offer specific remedies to gun violence after today
  • Was already backing a background check bill in the Senate, as well as legislation that would provide schools with federal funding to conduct trainings 
  • Now says he wants a ‘comprehensive’ background check bill that closes the so-called gun-show loophole

The National Rifle Association on Wednesday blasted President Donald Trump for his proposal to take guns away from dangerous individual even if it violates constitutional rights to due process.

Trump made the remarks during a bipartisan meeting with lawmakers at the White House to discuss safety measures in the wake of last week’s mass shooting at a high school in Florida.

‘While today’s meeting made for great TV, the gun control proposals discussed would make for bad policy that would not keep our children safe,’ NRA spokeswoman Jennifer Baker said in a statement to The Hill.

‘Instead of punishing law-abiding gun owners for the acts of a deranged lunatic our leaders should pass meaningful reforms that would actually prevent future tragedies.’

The National Rifle Association on Wednesday blasted President Donald Trump for his proposal to take guns away from dangerous individual even if it violates constitutional rights to due process

The National Rifle Association on Wednesday blasted President Donald Trump for his proposal to take guns away from dangerous individual even if it violates constitutional rights to due process

Baker said that preventing mass shootings would best be done by addressing the country’s mental health system and boosting background checks so that psychologically ill people are prevented from obtaining a gun.

The NRA spokeswoman said that her organization has always supported policies that promote school safety.

‘Whether you love or hate firearms, we all want to send our children to safe schools and to live in safe communities,’ she said.

But Baker added that this can be done without ‘shifting the focus, blame or burden onto safe, law-abiding gun owners.’

‘Doing everything we can as a nation to address the problem of dangerous people committing heinous acts is not inconsistent with the Second Amendment – the systemic failures of government to keep us safe reinforces the need for the Second Amendment,’ she said.

‘We will continue to support legislative efforts to make our schools and communities safe and oppose gun control schemes that cannot keep us safe and only punish law-abiding Americans.’

Trump angered the NRA earlier on Wednesday, saying he will be giving ‘very serious thought’ to signing legislation that lifts the minimum age for purchasing certain firearms like the AR-15 to 21.

The position is a serious split from the organization, which has been a major backer of Trump’s and most Republicans.

In a listening session with lawmakers on Wednesday, the president acknowledged that his posture wouldn’t be popular with the gun group, but he’ll be ‘giving it a lot of consideration’ anyway.

Trump demanded to know why background check legislation that he wants to use as a vehicle for gun violence prevention measures doesn’t already contain the provision.

‘You know why? Because you’re afraid of the NRA!’ the president told Sen. Pat Toomey, the Republican author of the bipartisan bill, with a laugh.

President Donald Trump (seen right with Senator John Cornyn, the Republican from Texas) said he will be giving 'very serious thought' to signing legislation that lifts the minimum age for purchasing firearms like the AR-15 to 21

President Donald Trump (seen right with Senator John Cornyn, the Republican from Texas) said he will be giving ‘very serious thought’ to signing legislation that lifts the minimum age for purchasing firearms like the AR-15 to 21

'You know why? Because you're afraid of the NRA!' the president told Sen. Pat Toomey, the Republican author of the bipartisan bill, with a laugh

‘You know why? Because you’re afraid of the NRA!’ the president told Sen. Pat Toomey, the Republican author of the bipartisan bill, with a laugh

The Pennsylvania lawmaker explained that five years ago, when the legislation first came for a vote in the Senate, an age restriction never came up.

Toomey also argued that the ‘vast majority’ of teens in his state are non-violent.

‘I know where you’re coming from, and I understand that,’ Trump replied.

But the president made clear that he wants Toomey and cosponsor Joe Manchin, a West Virginia Democrat, to include the measure in the universal background check bill they plan to revive in the Senate.

The measure failed in a Democratically-controlled 2013, even though it had the backing of 54 senators, because it did not reach the upper chamber’s 60-vote threshhold.

That was roughly four months after the horrific slaughter of 20 elementary school children in Newtown, Connecticut.

One lawmaker told Trump on Wednesday not to underestimate the power of the gun lobby as the president said over and over again that he couldn’t understand why action was not taken under the previous administration.

‘They have great power over you people,’ Trump replied. ‘Some of you people are petrified of the NRA.’

The president said he told the Second Amendment group, ‘We have to do what’s right.’

Trump said that he truly believes that the NRA also wants to do ‘what’s right’ for Americans.

‘I’m a big fan of the NRA. These are great people. These are great patriots. They love our country. But that doesn’t mean we have to agree on everything,’ the president told legislators.

Earlier on in the session, Chris Murphy, a Democratic senator from the state that endured the horrible tragedy five years ago that inspired Toomey’s failed background check bill, informed Trump that he would have to take on the NRA if he wanted substantive legislation to pass.

‘There is no other issue out there with the American public like background checks. Ninety-seven percent of Americans want universal background checks. And yet we can’t get it done, there’s nothing else like that. Where it works, people want it and we can’t do it,’ Murphy told the president.

Video playing bottom right…

One lawmaker told Trump on Wednesday not to underestimate the power of the gun lobby as the president said over and over again that he couldn't understand why action was not taken under the previous administration

One lawmaker told Trump on Wednesday not to underestimate the power of the gun lobby as the president said over and over again that he couldn’t understand why action was not taken under the previous administration

Asked if he'd sign legislation making 21 the floor for buying certain firearms, Trump said,'I'll tell you what, I'm going to give it a lot of consideration, and I'm the one bringing it up, and a lot of people don't even want to bring it up because they're afraid to bring it up

Asked if he’d sign legislation making 21 the floor for buying certain firearms, Trump said,’I’ll tell you what, I’m going to give it a lot of consideration, and I’m the one bringing it up, and a lot of people don’t even want to bring it up because they’re afraid to bring it up

Trump rebutted, ‘But you have a different president now.’

To which Murphy said, ‘The reason that nothing has gotten done here is because the gun lobby has had veto power over any legislation that comes before Congress .

‘I wish that wasn’t the case, but it is. If all we end up doing is stuff the gun industry supports than this just isn’t worth it, we’re not going to make a difference,’ he told the Republican president, ‘so I’m glad that you sat down with the NRA, but we will get 60 votes on a bill that looks like the Manchin-Toomey compromise on background checks if you, Mr. President, support it.’

The Connecticut Democrat told Trump: ‘If you come to Congress, if you come to Republicans and say we’re going to do a Manchin-Toomey-like bill to get comprehensive background checks, it will pass.

‘But if this meeting ends up with just sort of vague notions of future compromise than nothing will happen.’

Murphy explained that comprehensive background check legislation would have to bar criminals, people who are very mentally ill and individuals on the terrorist watchlist from purchasing guns.

‘But Mr. President it’s going to have to be you that brings the Republicans to the table on this because, right now, the gun lobby would stop it in its tracks,’ he said.

Trump told him, ‘I like that responsibility Chris, I really do. I think it’s time, it’s time that a president stepped up. I’m talking Democrat and Republican presidents, they haven’t stepped up.’

The president urged lawmakers in the room to come up with compromise legislation that encapsulates universal background checks and strengthens the existing system.

He told them he’d like to see age limits included in the merger, as well.

Asked if he’d sign legislation making 21 the floor for buying certain firearms, Trump said,’I’ll tell you what, I’m going to give it a lot of consideration, and I’m the one bringing it up, and a lot of people don’t even want to bring it up because they’re afraid to bring it up.

‘But I will give very serious thought to it,’ he said.

The president said he wants lawmakers to put together ‘something great.’

The president urged lawmakers in the room to come up with compromise legislation that encapsulates universal background checks and strengthens the existing system

The president urged lawmakers in the room to come up with compromise legislation that encapsulates universal background checks and strengthens the existing system

Wednesday was the first time that Trump heard from federal lawmakers leading the charge for new gun violence prevention measures in person since the Parkland massacre

Wednesday was the first time that Trump heard from federal lawmakers leading the charge for new gun violence prevention measures in person since the Parkland massacre

At one point, Sen. Dianne Feinstein, the Democrat from California, was elated when it appeared that Trump expressed support for gun control measures for which she has long advocated.

During the meeting, Feinstein’s Democratic colleague, Sen. Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota, proposed expanded background checks aimed at reducing domestic violence.

Trump replied that Klobuchar’s suggestion should be added to the bipartisan Toomey-Manchin bill.

Then the president turned to Feinstein and said she ‘could add what you have also…into the bill.’

Feinstein then appeared giddy – nearly jumping out of her seat, according to the San Francisco Chronicle.

‘Joe, are you ready?’ Feinstein then asked Manchin.

Then Trump chimed in to back up Feinstein.

‘Joe, can you do that? Can you add some of the things?’ Trump asked Manchin.

‘We’re going to get it passed,’ the president said.

During the meeting, Feinstein pressed Trump to endorse an assault weapons ban, but Trump told her she needed to work it out with her colleagues.

He would not go beyond his support for the age restrictions, background checks and concealed carry permits for teachers trained to wield firearms.

Making a reference to his proposal to allowed teachers to pack heat, Trump said, ‘To me something great, is where you stop it from happening, and I think there’s only one way.’

If lawmakers feel that’s the wrong way to attack the problem, Trump told them, ;I want a very strong counter punch.’

Trump predicted a ‘very successful vote’ this time around on gun control legislation.

‘Some people aren’t going to like that, but you’re going to have to look at that very seriously,’ he said, returning to age limits. ‘And I will sign it, and I will call whoever you want me to if I like what you’re doing, and I think I like what you’re doing already, but you can add to it.

‘But you have to be very, very powerful on background checks – don’t be shy – very strong on mentally ill, you have to be very very strong on that, and don’t worry about bump stock, we’re getting rid of it, I mean you don’t have to complicate the bill by adding another two paragraphs.’

The president claimed once again that his administration would be banning the firearms accessory that it plans to recategorize as a machine gun.

‘We’re getting rid of it. I’ll do that myself because I’m able to. Fortunately we’re able to do that without going through Congress,’ he asserted.

‘I DON’T KNOW WHY I WASN’T INVITED’: President Donald Trump will heard directly from lawmakers leading the charge for new gun violence prevention measures this afternoon at the White House…yet Florida’s Democratic senator, Bill Nelson, wasn’t invited

Wednesday was the first time that Trump heard from federal lawmakers leading the charge for new gun violence prevention measures in person since the Parkland massacre.

In addition to Machin, Toomey, Feinstein and Murphy, Sen. John Cornyn, the GOP whip in the Senate, and Florida Sen. Marco Rubio also attended.

Cornyn described President Trump’s meeting about guns today as ‘fascinating television’ and ‘surreal.’

‘My takeaway is that we like to start with background checks and build from there and see where we can get consensus,’ the Texas Republican said.

Cornyn, the Senate’s whip who was seated next to Trump during the meeting, added that rolling multiple gun bills into one was ‘easier said than done.’

The Sunshine State’s Democratic senator, Bill Nelson, says he was not invited.

A White House spokesperson did not respond to DailyMail.com’s request for comment on the snub. 

A chagrined Nelson told reporters Wednesday afternoon that he was not invited to the president’s chat today with legislators at the White House.

‘I don’t know why I wasn’t invited,’ he said, according to ABC News. ‘And of course that doesn’t foster bipartisanship when you’re trying to solve a problem.’

Trump has been holding listening sessions with parents, students, teachers, state and local officials, law enforcement officers and other stakeholders in the gun control debate, including the National Rifle Association, in the weeks since the Marjory Stoneman massacre.

Yesterday, the White House promised to unveil a set of ‘school safety’ recommendations later this week that will include specific policy initiatives.

The president was already supporting legislation that would incentivize states and agencies to fully comply with existing federal background check mandates. His White House also endorsed a bill this week that funds gun violence prevention training for teachers, law enforcement and students.

Trump last week directed his attorney general to find a way to regulate bump stocks, claiming this week that regardless of what Congress has to say about the matter he’s ‘getting rid’ of the accessory that manipulates semiautomatic rifles.

Other suggestions the president has made had been just that, with the White House pledging hardened stances on Tuesday by the end of the week.

Among those: the proposal to raise the minimum age for some gun purchases and a proposition to allow upwards of 700,000 teachers to carry concealed weapons.

Neither of the proposed remedies to gun violence was gaining traction on Capitol Hill this week as Congress returned from a week-long hiatus.

Sarah Sanders denies that Trump softened stance on gun age limit

A top GOP congressional aide told DailyMail.com on Tuesday that the prospects are ‘pretty dim,’ for age limits that could be why the president appeared to be backing away from it in remarks over the past few days.

‘That proposal won’t get a lot of traction in Congress,’ the source said.

Trump did not put forward the proposal during at Friday speech before conservative activists, and he did not bring it up Monday at a bipartisan meeting with governors at the White House, where gun violence was the top talker during a televised session.

Sources familiar with the White House’s discussions with leadership on Capitol Hill told CNN later that Trump was seemingly moving away from his position.

A senior congressional aide told DailyMail.com that discussions about the president’s proposals, like allowing teachers to pack heat, were still in their early stages, with Congress having been out of session last week and only just returning on Monday to Washington.

Furthermore, the House will be out from today on as the late evangelical pastor Billy Graham lies in honor in the U.S. Capitol.

The source said that the basic posture of the House is to see what can pass in the GOP-controlled Senate, which is focused this week on nominations.

House Republicans have already passed legislation to strengthen the existing background check system that it paired with a concealed carry provision. The Senate version of the background check bill has lingered in the Senate.

Trump informed GOP Rep. Steve Scalise, the Republican Party’s top vote counter in the House, on Wednesday that the measure permitting concealed carry reciprocity between states would have to be cut from the bill now in order to get the base background check bill through the more liberal Senate.

‘Let it be a separate bill,’ he warned the GOP leader. ‘If you add concealed carry to this, you’ll never get it passed.’

Trump’s administration had cautiously endorsed the Senate legislation that’s sponsored by Murphy and Cornyn.

On Monday the bill hit a roadblock in the upper chamber, though, as conservative senator Mike Lee opposed the measure and Democratic senators pushed for more aggressive gun control legislation.

The NRA does not support new age restrictions on firearms sales and its spokeswoman suggested Sunday that Trump was not firmly committed to his position

The NRA does not support new age restrictions on firearms sales and its spokeswoman suggested Sunday that Trump was not firmly committed to his position

Democrats want to Congress pass legislation requiring background checks on all firearms sales, eliminating the so-called gun show loophole.

Trump has said he favors comprehensive legislation, but the White House had refused to take a position on universal background checks prior to Trump’s assertion on Wednesday that he supports them.

‘We’d have to see what it looks like and review that before we make that determination,’ press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders said Monday.

Sanders was equally non-committal on Tuesday in her daily briefing when questioned about the president’s support for the bill put together by Manchin and Toomey.

‘The President, as I’ve said, expects to meet with a number of lawmakers tomorrow from both sides of the aisle, and we’ll have some more information about specifics after that,’ she asserted.

The Trump spokeswoman insisted Tuesday, as she did Monday, that the president remains supportive of the proposition to make sales of the AR-15 and other automatic rifles 21 and over, despite the National Rifle Association’s adamant opposition to the measure.

‘He knows that everybody doesn’t necessarily agree,’ Sanders explained. ‘We’re not going to get into the details on the specifics of what we will propose.’

On Monday, Sanders said that Trump had not ‘downgraded’ his proposal.

‘The president is still supportive of the concept,’ she said, as a weekend meeting with the National Rifle Association that was kept off Trump’s public schedule came to light.

The NRA does not support new age restrictions on firearms sales and its spokeswoman suggested Sunday that Trump was not firmly committed to his position.

‘These are just things that he’s discussing right now,’ spokesman Dana Loesch said during an appearance on ABC News.

Sanders told reporters on Monday that it ‘would be ridiculous’ to intimate that Trump had been influenced by the powerful gun group that opposes the restrictions ‘considering the number of individuals he’s met with that come from both the far left to the far right, and a lot of those in between.’

She said Trump plans to continue his talks with a lawmakers this week in meetings at the White House and would ultimately base his decision on what is outlined in legislative text.

‘In concept, the President still supports it, but in terms of legislation, we’d need to see what that looks like before we weigh in further,’ Sanders said.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5448253/NRA-war-Trump-bad-policy-guns.html#ixzz58YeICjKe

 

Story 3: Hope Dumps Trump — Tired of Abuse? — Bridge over Troubled Water — Sounds of Silence —  Videos

Who Is Hope Hicks, the White House Communications Director?

Hope Hicks to resign: President Trump losing trusted adviser

Hope Hicks resigning from White House

White House turmoil intensifies

What Hope Hicks’s departure says about the White House

Schiff: Hicks refused to discuss Trump administration

‘Javanka’ Faction Falling Apart As Hope Hicks, Others Quit W.H. | Rachel Maddow | MSNBC

White House communications director Hope Hicks to resign

Hope Hicks To Resign As President Trump’s White House Communications Director | TIME

Why is Hope Hicks, Trump’s longest-serving aide, resigning?

Published on Feb 28, 2018

White House Communications Director Hope Hicks made the surprising announcement on Wednesday that she will leave the Trump administration in the coming weeks. The news comes a day after Hicks testifies for hours before the House Intelligence Committee as part of the Russia probe. Judy Woodruff learns more from Ashley Parker of The Washington Post.

Hope Hicks named most powerful person in Washington

Hope Hicks Now in Spotlight Surrounding White House Domestic Abuse Scandal

Lawrence: Hope Hicks’ Loyalty Tested As She Meets Mueller Team | The Last Word | MSNBC

Hope Hicks Is The New White House Communications Director

Simon & Garfunkel – The Sound of Silence – Madison Square Garden, NYC – 2009/10/29&30

Simon & Garfunkel – Bridge over Troubled Water (from The Concert in Central Park)

 

Why did Hope Hicks resign? Even the good option looks bad.

 March 1 at 6:30 AM 
1:48
Hope Hicks to resign as White House communications director
Embed
Share

Officials announced on Feb. 28 that Hope Hicks will resign. She had been White House communications director since Sept. 2017. 

White House Communications Director Hope Hicks is resigning less than six months after officially taking that job on a permanent basis. And according to a timeline provided by the reporter who broke the story, the New York Times’s Maggie Haberman, Hicks spent a substantial portion of her tenure — perhaps as much as half of it — considering leaving.

Hope Hicks departure is NOT about yesterday’s hearing, per multiple sources. She had planned it before, had been thinking about it for months. She had informed a very small number of people prior to Hill hearing that she planned to leave.

It was tempting to draw a line — as Iand others speculated about — between Hicks’s exit and two controversies: Her involvement in the Rob Porter scandal as both communications director and his girlfriend, and her House Intelligence Committee testimony Tuesday in which she admitted to telling white lies for Trump. If nothing else, the timing is suspicious for a resignation to come so close in proximity to each of those two things.

But consider the alternative. The alternative is that someone who has been in the White House for 13 months started thinking about leaving well shy of a year on the staff — and shortly after rising to one of the top jobs. The point: Regardless of which one it was, it doesn’t portend good things or stability in the White House moving forward.

It’s no secret the White House has become something of a revolving door for staff. Hicks was the fifth person designated as communications director and the third to hold the job on a non-interim basis. Trump has also already parted ways with a press secretary, a national security adviser, a chief strategist, a chief of staff (with his second, John Kelly, apparently on thin ice) and plenty of others.

Hicks was supposed to be different. Perhaps his longest-serving aide — dating back to before the campaign — she was someone who understood Trump and seemed to command his implicit trust. The White House would be a stressful job for anyone, but Hicks at least benefited from the kind of strong working relationship with Trump that other figures — especially those from the GOP establishment — clearly did not have.

She was not as familiar with politics as others, but in a White House in which conflicts with the boss are often the cause for early departures, Hicks made sense as a potential long-termer. Like Reince Priebus, Stephen K. Bannon, Sean Spicer and the rest, though, she has now proven a short-timer. Even fellow Trump loyalists like Keith Schiller have found the White House to be tough long-term employment.

Whether it’s because of exhaustion in dealing with Trump or the exhaustion in dealing with Washington politics for outsiders like Hicks, or a combination, it seems Trump will have a difficult time maintaining anything resembling a core staff organization. And for a president who has struggled with consistency and is thought to be heavily reliant upon the last person he has spoken to, that’s likely to lead to even more volatility.

We may yet learn more about Hicks’s departure in the days to come. Nothing about it, though, suggests stability is over the horizon for the White House. If anything was stability for Trump, it was Hicks.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2018/03/01/why-did-hope-hicks-resign-even-the-good-option-looks-bad/?utm_term=.0f637e64c0dc

Turnover, investigations have Trump administration adrift

WASHINGTON (AP) — Rattled by two weeks of muddled messages, departures and spitting matches between the president and his own top officials, Donald Trump is facing a shrinking circle of trusted advisers and a staff that’s grim about any prospect of a reset.

Even by the standards of Trump’s often chaotic administration, the announcement of Hope Hicks’ imminent exit spread new levels of anxiety across the West Wing and cracked open disputes that had been building since the White House’s botched handling of domestic violence allegations against a senior aide late last month.

Hicks’ departure comes as special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation appears to be circling the Oval Office, with prosecutors questioning Trump associates about both his business dealings before he became president and his actions in office, according to people with knowledge of the interviews. Jared Kushner, Trump’s son-in-law and senior adviser, has also been weakened after being stripped of his high-level security clearance amid revelations about potential conflicts of interest.

Communications Director Hope Hicks, one of President Trump’s most trusted aides, abruptly announced her resignation Wednesday. Julie Pace says Hicks is under the political magnifying glass, which might have affected her decision. (Feb. 28)

The biggest unknown is how the mercurial Trump will respond to Hicks’ departure and Kushner’s more limited access, according to some of the 16 White House officials, congressional aides and outside advisers interviewed by The Associated Press, most of whom insisted on anonymity in order to disclose private conversations and meetings. Besides Kushner and his wife, presidential daughter Ivanka Trump, most remaining White House staffers were not part of Trump’s close-knit 2016 campaign. One person who speaks to Trump regularly said the president has become increasingly wistful about the camaraderie of that campaign.

Rarely has a modern president confronted so many crises and controversies across so many fronts at the same time. After 13 months in office, there’s little expectation among many White House aides and outside allies that Trump can quickly find his footing or attract new, top-flight talent to the West Wing. And some Republican lawmakers, who are eying a difficult political landscape in November’s midterm elections, have begun to let private frustrations ooze out in public.

“There is no standard operating practice with this administration,” said Sen. John Thune of South Dakota. “Every day is a new adventure for us.”

Thune’s comments described the White House’s peculiar rollout Thursday of controversial new aluminum and steel tariffs. White House aides spent Wednesday night and Thursday morning scrambling to steer the president away from an announcement on an unfinished policy, with even Kelly in the dark about Trump’s plans. Aides believed they had succeeded in getting Trump to back down and hoped to keep television cameras away from an event with industry executives so the president couldn’t make a surprise announcement. But Trump summoned reporters into the Cabinet Room anyway and declared that the U.S. would levy penalties of 25 percent on steel and 10 percent on aluminum imports.

Some of Trump’s populist supporters cheered the move. The stock market, which Trump looks to for validation for his economic policies, plunged.

Some officials are bracing for more departures. On Thursday, NBC News reported that the White House was preparing to replace national security adviser H.R. McMaster as early as next month.

White House Sarah Huckabee Sanders told “Fox & Friends” on Friday that “Gen. McMaster isn’t going anywhere.”

As for talk of a White House in upheaval, Sanders pointed out the tax cuts passed late last year: “If they want to call it chaos, fine, but we call it success and productivity and we’re going to keep plugging along.”

For those remaining on the job, the turbulence has been relentless. Just two weeks ago, Kelly, the general brought in to bring order, was himself on the ropes for his handling of the domestic violence allegations against a close aide, Rob Porter. Trump was said to be deeply irritated by the negative press coverage of Kelly’s leadership during the controversy and considering firing him. But first, the president planned to give his chief of staff a chance to defend himself before reporters in the briefing room and gauge the reaction, according to two people with knowledge of the episode. The briefing, however, was canceled after the school shooting in Parkland, Florida. Kelly’s standing has stabilized somewhat as media attention to the Porter issue has waned.

Graphic shows key departures from Trump administration.

One Kelly backer said the chief of staff’s standing remains tenuous, in part because of his clashes with Kushner over policy, personnel and White House structure. The tensions were exacerbated by Kelly’s decision to downgrade Kushner’s security clearance because the senior adviser had not been permanently approved for the highest level of access.

Kushner and Ivanka Trump, who also serves as a senior White House adviser, have been frustrated by Kelly’s attempt to restrict their access to the president, and they perceive his new crackdown on clearances as a direct shot at them, according to White House aides and outside advisers. Kelly, in turn, has grown frustrated with what he views as the couple’s freelancing. He blames them for changing Trump’s mind at the last minute and questions what exactly they do all day, according to one White House official and an outside ally.

The ethics questions dogging Kushner relate to both his personal financial interests and his dealings in office with foreign officials. Intelligence officials expressed concern that Kushner’s business dealings were a topic of discussion in conversations he was having with foreign officials about foreign policy issues of interest to the U.S. government, a former intelligence official said. Separately, The New York Times reported that two companies made loans worth more than half a billion dollars to Kushner’s family real estate firm after executives met with Kushner at the White House.

Allies of Kushner and Ivanka Trump insist they have no plans to leave the White House in the near future. As for Kelly, he appeared to hint at his tough spot during an event Thursday at the Department of Homeland Security, where he served as secretary before departing for the White House.

“The last thing I wanted to do was walk away from one of the great honors of my life, being the secretary of homeland security,” he said at the agency’s 15th anniversary celebration in Washington. “But I did something wrong and God punished me, I guess.”

___

Associated Press writers Kevin Freking and Catherine Lucey contributed to this report.

https://www.apnews.com/675dbc2801ca418a934f52b714d5e08b/Turnover,-investigations-have-Trump-administration-adrift

 

The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts Portfolio

 

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1041

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1033-1040

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1023-1032

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1017-1022

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1010-1016

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1001-1009

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 993-1000

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 984-992

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 977-983

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 970-976

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 963-969

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 955-962

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 946-954

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 938-945

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 926-937

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 916-925

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 906-915

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 889-896

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 884-888

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 878-883

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 870-877

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 864-869

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 857-863

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 850-856

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 845-849

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 840-844

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 833-839

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 827-832

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 821-826

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 815-820

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 806-814

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 800-805

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 793-799

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 785-792

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 777-784

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 769-776

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 759-768

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 751-758

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 745-750

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 738-744

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 732-737

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 727-731

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 720-726

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or DownloadShows 713-719

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or DownloadShows 705-712

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 695-704

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 685-694

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 675-684

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 668-674

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 660-667

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 651-659

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 644-650

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 637-643

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 629-636

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 617-628

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 608-616

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 599-607

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 590-598

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 585- 589

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 575-584

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 565-574

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 556-564

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 546-555

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 538-545

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 532-537

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 526-531

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 519-525

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 510-518

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 500-509

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 490-499

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 480-489

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 473-479

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 464-472

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 455-463

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 447-454

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 439-446

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 431-438

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 422-430

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 414-421

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 408-413

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 400-407

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 391-399

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 383-390

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 376-382

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 369-375

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 360-368

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 354-359

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 346-353

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 338-345

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 328-337

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 319-327

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 307-318

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 296-306

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 287-295

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 277-286

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 264-276

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 250-263

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 236-249

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 222-235

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 211-221

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 202-210

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 194-201

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 184-193

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 174-183

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 165-173

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 158-164

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 151-157

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 143-150

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 135-142

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 131-134

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 124-130

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 121-123

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 118-120

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 113 -117

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 112

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 108-111

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 106-108

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 104-105

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 101-103

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 98-100

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 94-97

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 93

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 92

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 91

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 88-90

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 84-87

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 79-83

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 74-78

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 71-73

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 68-70

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 65-67

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 62-64

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 58-61

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 55-57

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 52-54

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 49-51

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 45-48

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 41-44

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 38-40

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 34-37

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 30-33

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 27-29

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 17-26

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 16-22

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 10-15

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1-9

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

The Pronk Pops Show 1021, January 25, 2018, Story 1: President Trump aka Amnesty Don Will Lose His Support Base If He Agrees To A Pathway To Citizenship For Any of The 30-60 Million Illegal Aliens in The United States Including Illegal Alien “Dreamers” — Do Not Reward Criminal Behavior — Do Not Repeat Reagan’s Biggest Mistake of Granting Amnesty Before Securing The Borders — Enforce Existing Immigration Law — Deport All Illegal Aliens — Trump’s Promise — Videos — Story 2: President Trump Woos World Leaders To Invest in America at World Economic Forum (WEF) in Davos Global Gathering of Corporate and Political Establishment Elitists — Videos — Story 3: FBI Missing Text Messages Found and Fake Bureau of Investigation of Clinton Emails Revealed — The Fix Was In To Make Sure Hillary Clinton Was Exonerated For Massive Mishandling of Classified Information — Appoint Special Counsel and Indict Hillary Clinton — You Have Five Days Before 5 Year Statue of Limitations Runs Out! — Videos

Posted on January 25, 2018. Filed under: American History, Blogroll, Breaking News, Business, Cartoons, Communications, Corruption, Countries, Crime, Donald J. Trump, Donald J. Trump, Donald Trump, Economics, Education, Employment, Food, Foreign Policy, Freedom of Speech, Government, Government Spending, Hillary Clinton, History, Housing, Human, Human Behavior, Illegal Immigration, Illegal Immigration, Immigration, Independence, Insurance, Investments, Israel, James Comey, Language, Law, Legal Immigration, Life, Lying, Media, Middle East, National Interest, Networking, News, Obama, People, Philosophy, Photos, Politics, Polls, President Trump, Progressives, Raymond Thomas Pronk, Resources, Robert S. Mueller III, Rule of Law, Scandals, Success, Taxation, Taxes, Technology, Unemployment, United States of America, Videos, Violence, Wall Street Journal, War, Wealth, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |

Project_1

The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts

Pronk Pops Show 1021, January 25, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1020, January 24, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1019, January 18, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1018, January 17, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1017, January 16, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1016, January 10, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1015, January 9, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1014, January 8, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1013, December 13, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 1012, December 12, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 1011, December 11, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 1010, December 8, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 1009, December 7, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 1008, December 1, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 1007, November 28, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 1006, November 27, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 1005, November 22, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 1004, November 21, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 1003, November 20, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 1002, November 15, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 1001, November 14, 2017 

Pronk Pops Show 1000, November 13, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 999, November 10, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 998, November 9, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 997, November 8, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 996, November 6, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 995, November 3, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 994, November 2, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 993, November 1, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 992, October 31, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 991, October 30, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 990, October 26, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 989, October 25, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 988, October 20, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 987, October 19, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 986, October 18, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 985, October 17, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 984, October 16, 2017 

Pronk Pops Show 983, October 13, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 982, October 12, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 981, October 11, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 980, October 10, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 979, October 9, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 978, October 5, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 977, October 4, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 976, October 2, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 975, September 29, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 974, September 28, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 973, September 27, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 972, September 26, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 971, September 25, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 970, September 22, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 969, September 21, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 968, September 20, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 967, September 19, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 966, September 18, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 965, September 15, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 964, September 14, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 963, September 13, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 962, September 12, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 961, September 11, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 960, September 8, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 959, September 7, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 958, September 6, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 957, September 5, 2017

See the source image

See the source imageSee the source imageSee the source image

Story 1: President Trump aka Amnesty Don Will Lose His Support Base If He Agrees To A Pathway To Citizenship For Any of The 30-60 Million Illegal Aliens in The United States Including Illegal Alien “Dreamers” — Do Not Reward Criminal Behavior — Do Not Repeat Reagan’s Biggest Mistake of Granting Amnesty Before Securing The Borders — Enforce Existing Immigration Law — Deport All Illegal Aliens — Trump’s Promise — Videos —

Trump immigration proposal would offer a path to citizenship

White House reveals framework of immigration proposal

Trump immigration proposal draws mixed reactions from both parties

The Ingraham Angle 1/25/18 With Laura Ingraham | The Ingraham Angle Fox News January 25, 2018

Trump will offer citizenship to 1.8 MILLION ‘Dreamers’

How DACA Hurts Americans

1995: Barbara Jordan on “Immigration Reform”

President Trump says he shares immigration views with Barbara Jordan

SHOCKER: Trump wants AMNESTY for DREAMERS – caught on tape

Tucker: Entitled Illegal Immigrants Demand Amnesty – Tucker Carlson

Rep. Bob Goodlatte on chain migration, FBI revelations

Taxpayers fund commercial flights for illegal immigrants

Illegal Aliens Quietly Being Relocated Throughout U.S. on Commercial Flights

Donald Trump lays out three steps of his immigration policy

Trump: It is realistic to deport all illegal immigrants

Inside Trump’s impromptu White House press conference

Listen: Trump says he would speak to Mueller under oath

Hear Trump’s full exchange with reporters

Donald Trump explains his immigration plan

Donald Trump lays out three steps of his immigration policy

Trump: It is realistic to deport all illegal immigrants

Inside Trump’s impromptu White House press conference

Listen: Trump says he would speak to Mueller under oath

Hear Trump’s full exchange with reporters

Donald Trump explains his immigration plan

Ingraham Warns Trump Not to Renege on Immigration Promises

Tucker Carlson blasts Trump’s ‘negotiation skills’ on immigration

Tucker Carlson blasts Trump’s ‘negotiation skills’ on immigration

Trump’s immigration meeting was lowest day of presidency: Ann Coulter

Sen. Tom Cotton on chain migration, Tillerson speculation

BEST VERSION: Reagan on Amnesty & Illegal Immigration

President Reagan’s Remarks at Ceremony for Immigration Reform and Control Act. November 6, 1986

The Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986

Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986

“They’re all Illegals” Adam Carolla REACTS to DACA termination by President Trump

Immigration by the Numbers — Off the Charts

‘Amnesty Don’ Trends at Number One on Twitter in Washington, D.C.

“Amnesty Don” is trending, everyone. My question: Will that change Trump’s mind by 8 am?

Trump’s biggest supporters immediately took to Twitter using the hashtag “#AmnestyDon” to blast the President for his choice to give into DACA amnesty.

DACA recipients currently hold upwards of 700,000 U.S. jobs. An ultimate end to the program – with DACA recipients not getting amnesty –would result in a 700,000 job stimulus for American workers. This would amount to nearly 30,000 new U.S. job openings for American workers every month once the program is officially phased out.

Although screening for DACA was previously touted as being sufficient in keeping criminals out, United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) revealed that more than 2,100 recipients had their status revoked for being criminals or gang members.

John Binder is a reporter for Breitbart News. Follow him on Twitter at @JxhnBinder.

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/09/13/amnesty-don-trends-at-number-one-on-twitter-in-washington-d-c/

 

Trump offers to triple Obama’s amnesty number in exchange for tougher security laws

President Trump will submit his immigration proposal to Congress next week. (Associated Press/File)
President Trump will submit his immigration proposal to Congress next week. (Associated Press/File) more >
 – The Washington Times – Updated: 6:45 p.m. on Thursday, January 25, 2018

President Trump will propose a pathway to citizenship for 1.8 million illegal immigrant Dreamers, nearly tripling the Obama-era DACA program, the White House said Thursday.

Mr. Trump’s vision, which he will submit to Congress next week, would grant legal status to fewer than the 3 million people under the plan Senate Democrats have backed. But the number of people is far higher than the 690,000 in the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program.

White House officials said they felt they had to go that far in order to demand major changes on the security side, including an end to catch-and-release of illegal immigrants snared at the border, faster deportations for those caught overstaying their visas inside the U.S. and $25 billion for Mr. Trump’s wall.

The president also will demand strict limits on the chain of family migration across the board — not just for newly legalized Dreamers.

He would allow immigrants to petition for spouses and minor children but would eliminate parents, siblings and adult children from chain migration. Extended family already in the backlog would be allowed to enter, but no further applications would be accepted.

The combination of legalization and security puts Mr. Trump squarely in the middle of the immigration debate, between Democrats who want a more generous amnesty and House Republicans who opposed citizenship and were instead pushing a massive package of security changes.

“As part of this effort to ensure there is full bipartisan support for this package, we believe the total number that will be able to apply for legal status … will be a population of individuals of 1.8 million people,” a senior White House official said.

The official said Mr. Trump wouldn’t agree to a deal on Dreamers without the border security, enforcement and policy changes.

“This is kind of a bottom line for the president,” another official told reporters at the White House.

The plan calls for a $25 billion trust fund to build Mr. Trump’s border wall and other infrastructure. That would ensure a future Congress couldn’t withhold the money.

Mr. Obama supported a path to citizenship for Dreamers but was unable to get that legislation through Congress, which was why his administration circumvented Capitol Hill to create the DACA program.

Begun in 2012, the program approved some 800,000 people for renewable two-year permits granting them a stay of deportation and authority to work in the U.S. Of those people, some 690,000 were still protected under DACA as of late last year.

Of the additional 1.1 million people Mr. Trump would enroll, about 600,000 were eligible for DACA but, for various reasons, didn’t apply, and 500,000 or so who would be admitted under adjusted timelines.

The White House called the 1.8 million “a dramatic concession by the White House to get to 60 votes in the Senate.”

It would take the immigrants 10 to 12 years to earn citizenship.

Sen. Ted Cruz, Texas Republican, said the president had embraced an amnesty that even President Obama was denied.

“I do not believe we should be granting a path to citizenship to anybody here illegally,” he said. “All of these proposals being floated that have a path to citizenship for DACA recipients are markedly to the left of where President Obama was. DACA itself has no path to citizenship under President Obama’s illegal executive amnesty.”

Democrats remained skeptical of Mr. Trump’s support for citizenship, which he announced to reporters on Wednesday.

“What he says on Tuesday is not necessarily what he says on Thursday,” said Sen. Ron Wyden of Oregon, the top Democrat on the Senate Finance Committee.

Other Democrats said Mr. Trump’s calculus of a trade of Dreamers for the wall was still unacceptable.

“I do not support border wall funding,” said Sen. Cory A. Booker, New Jersey Democrat.

He said he was holding out hope that Dreamers could get citizenship without a wall.

“I’m a prisoner of hope, but that does not mean I have some Pollyannaish view that this is going to work out,” said Mr. Booker. “Hope is work, hope is sacrifice, so we are going to fight this.”

Still, Sen. Michael F. Bennet, Colorado Democrat, said the president’s move toward citizenship for Dreamers was encouraging.

“I think there is a general consensus among people working on this that a pathway has to be part of it,” he said.

The White House plan could undercut efforts by House conservatives, who back a much tougher security plan. That would grant the 690,000 people under DACA a new legal status of three-year work permits, approved by Congress, in exchange for mandatory use of E-Verify for employers to check work status, curtailing abuse of the asylum system, cracking down on sanctuary cities and punishing repeat illegal immigrants.

The White House said it envisioned Mr. Trump’s plan as the basis for Senate negotiations but expected the House to pass its own bill.

“We’re not trying to force something on the House at this point. I think the House has got its own independent process,” an adviser said.

The White House said the president’s plan would boost security at the northern border as well, which could entice senators in Montana, North Dakota and Minnesota who are calling for attention to the U.S.-Canada line.

Mr. Trump’s plan would cancel the Diversity Visa Lottery, which gives 50,000 visas per year based on chance. Those visas would be recaptured and used to reduce the backlog in merit-based migration.

The president also asked Congress to allow faster deportations for those who overstay their visitors’ visas, who could account for half of all new illegal immigration.

Mr. Trump said Congress must change the laws to help end the catch-and-release policy that applies to countries other than Mexico and Canada who cannot be quickly turned back home.

Under the current system, migrants who cannot be detained are released with the hope that they will return for their deportation hearings. They rarely do.

The White House said it had dozens of other enforcement changes it could have demanded, such as E-Verify, but it would pursue those later.

“This is the first bite,” said a White House official. “There is a second phase to this. There are 11 million people who live here illegally.”

The plan is unlikely to please activists on either side of the debate.

Indeed, immigrant rights groups were skeptical even after Mr. Trump said he would support full citizenship rights.

Frank Sharry, executive director of America’s Voice, called it “a spoonful of sugar before the bitter medicine of Trump’s far-reaching nativist agenda.”

“No way. We won’t stand for it,” he said. “They don’t get to exploit a crisis they created to take a wrecking ball to the Statue of Liberty.”

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/jan/25/trump-amnesty-cover-18-million-dreamers/

 

Trump Proposes Citizenship for Dreamers in Exchange for Wall, Other Concessions

Administration also looking to restrict family-based immigration and hiring more border agents, immigration judges and prosecutors

Immigrant rights groups rallied on Thursday in Hartford, Conn., as lawmakers in Washington negotiated an immigration deal.
Immigrant rights groups rallied on Thursday in Hartford, Conn., as lawmakers in Washington negotiated an immigration deal. PHOTO: JOHN MOORE/GETTY IMAGES

WASHINGTON—President Donald Trump proposed a path to citizenship for 1.8 million undocumented immigrants brought to the U.S. as children, if lawmakers agree to create a $25 billion fund to expand barriers along the Mexico border and make other changes to the immigration system.

The proposal, presented to Senate leaders on Thursday, would additionally restrict family-based immigration, which is the channel by which most immigrants have come to the U.S. for the past 50 years. The White House plan also calls for an end to a lottery-type program that randomly awards 50,000 visas annually to foreigners.

Mr. Trump was in Davos, Switzerland, for the World Economic Forum on Thursday. But his top aides told Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell that the president would sign into law legislation that included these changes. The Republican leader responded that he intended to bring such a bill to a vote during the week of Feb. 5, White House officials said.

It wasn’t immediately clear whether Mr. McConnell could find enough support for such a measure. Passage needs a total of 60 votes in the Senate that will require backing from Republicans, who hold 51 seats, and some Democrats.

And White House officials on Thursday acknowledged that approval was an even bigger question in the House, where a small but powerful wing of conservative Republicans can—and often do—prevent their party from acting without help from Democrats.

The biggest question Thursday was how conservatives will react to Mr. Trump’s support for citizenship for the Dreamers, who were shielded from deportation by actions taken by former President Barack Obama. About 700,000 immigrants registered for that program, known as Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals.

Mr. Trump’s plan would protect those people, plus others who would otherwise qualify. That brings the total to about 1.8 million people who could become citizens within 10 to 12 years, White House officials said.

“This represents a dramatic concession by the White House to get to 60 votes from the Senate,” a senior administration official said, describing the bill as a “compromise on many fronts.”

Mr. Trump’s path to citizenship would also include requirements for work, education and “good moral character,” which has long been one of the requirements for naturalization in the U.S. That status could be revoked in the case of criminal conduct, public safety concerns or dependency on the government for subsistence, such as cash assistance.

When the president suggested he would be in favor of a plan late Wednesday before leaving for Davos, the conservative website Breitbart.com ran a headline referring to Mr. Trump as “Amnesty Don.”

But Mr. Trump has long said he was open to protecting Dreamers, and the White House is betting that his supporters will overlook those concessions if he can secure funding for a border wall. While Mr. Trump promised voters he would make Mexico pay for the wall, his plan instead asks Congress to find $25 billion for a trust fund that future lawmakers couldn’t divert to other programs.

The total price tag on Mr. Trump’s plan for border security—along both the southern and northern border—would cost billions more, White House officials said. Asked if it would cost another $5 billion, one White house official said that amount was “in the ballpark.”

Additional border security measures the president is seeking include standardizing treatment of undocumented immigrants, regardless of country of origin; expediting removal of those who overstayed their visa; and hiring additional border agents, immigration judges, and prosecutors.

“A expeditious removal process is going to be a huge deterrent for new people coming in illegally, which will many, many, many lives,” a senior administration official said. “Once people see there is predictability in the system, they will stop coming in illegally.”

On family-based immigration, Mr. Trump’s plan would restrict so-called chain migration to only spouses and minor children. The administration argues that successive rounds of family-based admissions tilts the immigrant pool away from young, skilled workers best equipped to prosper and assimilate.

Those who have already applied for family-based immigration would be allowed to continue through the process, under Mr. Trump’s plan.

Some of that backlog would be cleared by using slots from the Diversity Visa Lottery. The president called for an end to the process, a marginal visa program once tied to efforts to help Irish migrants, after it was used by the man accused of driving a rented truck through a crowd of cyclists and pedestrian in New York City.

Ending the program would also free up visas to be used for skilled migrants, a White House official said.

“The president campaigned pretty hard on immigration—this is something he’s given on,” a senior White House official said, calling the proposal, “kind of a bottom line for the president.”

https://www.wsj.com/articles/democrats-try-to-narrow-focus-of-an-immigration-deal-1516903971

Senator Richard J. Durbin, Democrat of Illinois, met with the young unauthorized immigrants known as Dreamers and their supporters outside the Capitol last week. CreditErin Schaff for The New York Times

WASHINGTON — President Trump proposed legislation on Thursday that would provide a path to citizenship for as many as 1.8 million young undocumented immigrants in exchange for an end to decades of family-based migration policies, a costly border wall and a vast crackdown on other immigrants living in the country illegally.

Describing the plan as “extremely generous” but a take-it-or-leave-it proposal, White House officials said they hoped it would be embraced by conservatives and centrists in Congress as the first step in an even broader effort to fix the nation’s immigration system.

Officials said the legislation would pave the way to citizenship not only for the 690,000 people who had signed up for protection under an Obama-era program, known as Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, or DACA, but also for another 1.1 million undocumented immigrants who would have qualified for the program but never applied. Mr. Trump ended the DACA program, whose protections did not include a path to citizenship, last September.

But the new plan — drafted by Stephen Miller, the president’s hard-line domestic policy adviser, and John F. Kelly, the White House chief of staff — was immediately rejected by Democrats, immigration advocates and some Republicans, with some describing it as nothing but an attempt to rid the country of immigrants and shut the nation’s borders.

Republican and Democratic senators are working on a narrower immigration plan of their own. They hope that if it can pass the Senate with a strong bipartisan majority, it will put pressure on the House — where attempts at immigration overhauls have died in recent years — to pass the legislation as well.

Senate passage of a bipartisan bill could perhaps leave Mr. Trump with the take-it-or-leave-it decision. Just over two weeks ago, in a televised negotiating session at the White House, Mr. Trump said he would sign anything that got to him.

Senators Lindsey Graham of South Carolina and Jeff Flake of Arizona — Republicans who have in the past fought against hard-line immigration policies — said the Senate was unlikely to simply accept the president’s legislation.

“We’re getting started without them,” Mr. Flake said. Mr. Graham said bluntly, “This is a negotiation.”

Members of both parties said that legislation would have a better chance of passing if it focused on legal status for DACA recipients without a dramatic crackdown on illegal immigrants or new restrictions on legal immigration for extended family members.

“If you start putting in all of these highly charged toxic issues, it’s just not going to work,” said Senator Bill Nelson, Democrat of Florida.

Anti-immigration activists also assailed the plan, though for the opposite reason. Breitbart News greeted word of the president’s plan with the headline “Amnesty Don Suggests Citizenship for Illegal Aliens.”

Under Mr. Trump’s plan, described to reporters by senior White House officials, young immigrants who were brought into the United States illegally as children would be granted legal status, would be allowed to work, and could become citizens over a 10-to-12-year period if they remained out of trouble with the law.

In exchange, Congress would have to create a $25 billion trust fund to pay for a southern border wall, dramatically increase immigration arrests, speed up deportations, crack down on people who overstay their visas, prevent citizens from bringing their parents to the United States, and end a State Department program designed to encourage migration from underrepresented countries.

White House officials said that the list of enhanced security measures — which have been on anti-immigration wish lists for decades — were nonnegotiable. They warned that if no deal is reached, DACA recipients will face deportation when the program fully expires on March 5.

One senior official said the young immigrants would not be targeted, but are “illegal immigrants” who would be processed for deportation if they came into contact with immigration officers.

Eddie Vale, a Democratic consultant working with a coalition of immigration groups, described the president’s proposal as an effort to sabotage bipartisan talks and win passage of “a white supremacist wish list.”

Officials said the president’s decision to formally present a plan to Congress was a direct response to members of Congress, including Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the majority leader, who had complained that they did not know where the president stood in the immigration debate.

“We’re basically signaling that this is the bill the president can sign,” one senior official said during the briefing.

Officials said they expected Mr. McConnell to bring the president’s plan to the Senate floor for a vote during the week of Feb. 5, just days before the Feb. 8 expiration of a short-term government spending plan.

The president’s legislative proposal is designed to exert maximum pressure on Democrats, who are desperate to protect the young immigrants, known as Dreamers, but who fiercely oppose the policies embraced by hard-liners like Mr. Miller.

The strategy would work only if the Senate fails to reach a broad bipartisan accord on an alternative: legislation that would protect the Dreamers and bolster border security, but reject the most draconian aspects of the White House’s proposal.

Mr. Trump hinted at the proposal to come on Wednesday evening in impromptu comments suggesting that he was open to allowing some of the young immigrants to become citizens in 10 to 12 years. But his comments were quickly followed on Thursday morning by a White House email warning of a flood of immigrants into the country and demanding an end to policies that allow families to sponsor the immigration of their immediate relatives.

And even as Mr. Trump was offering reassuring words to the Dreamers — “tell them not to worry,” he told reporters Wednesday evening — senior White House officials were emphasizing the more hard-line features of their forthcoming immigration proposal.

In September, Mr. Trump ended the DACA program and set it to expire at the beginning of March, when recipients would no longer be able to work legally in the United States and would once again face the threat of deportation.

Democratic lawmakers and activists say they will refuse to accept any proposal that requires them to forsake the well-being of other immigrants, including the parents of the Dreamers, to secure the fate of the young immigrants themselves.

“It is shameful that the White House is holding these youth hostage in exchange for their extreme immigration agenda,” said Kevin Appleby, the senior director of international migration policy for the Center for Migration Studies.

On Thursday, a bipartisan group of senators calling itself the Common Sense Coalition gathered in the office of Senator Susan Collins, Republican of Maine, to discuss the immigration issue. At issue is the scope of the bill. Some senators want to draft a narrow bill that bolsters border security and codifies protections now extended to DACA recipients, which do not include a path to citizenship. Others say the legislation should take Mr. Trump up on his offer of citizenship, but to do that, lawmakers might have to take the rest of the White House’s deal.

“Do we simply codify what DACA is and extend it out over a period of time, or do we try to go farther than that as the president is suggesting?” asked Senator Mike Rounds, Republican of South Dakota. “If you do that, you have to address the issue of chain migration, and that’s where it becomes a lot more complicated.”

Hard-liners, apparently led by Senator John Cornyn of Texas, the No. 2 Republican in the Senate, say the White House’s strategy needs to be considered — and that means four elements: Dreamers; border security and a wall; chain migration; and an end to the diversity visa lottery.

“Everybody wants to alter reality in a way that sort of suits their needs,” Mr. Cornyn said. “But the reality is the president said there has to be four pillars. People just need to accept that and deal with it.”

Senator Richard J. Durbin, Democrat of Illinois, and Mr. Graham have been leading bipartisan talks on immigration. Their initial proposal — which did not include the president’s more hard-line proposals — was rejected by Mr. Trump during a White House meeting in which the president used vulgarities to describe Africans.

872COMMENTS

On Wednesday night, Mr. Graham held a meeting with a far larger group of about 30 senators. They decided that Mr. Durbin, the No. 2 Democrat in the Senate, and Mr. Cornyn would each function as a clearinghouse for ideas on immigration from their respective parties.

“We’ve got more people in the room, which is good,” Mr. Graham said. “We’re getting more input. We’ve just got to turn it into more output.”

  https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/25/us/politics/trump-immigration-plan-white-house.html

 

Trump offers to triple Obama’s amnesty number in exchange for tougher security laws

President Trump will submit his immigration proposal to Congress next week. (Associated Press/File)
President Trump will submit his immigration proposal to Congress next week. (Associated Press/File) more >
 – The Washington Times – Updated: 6:45 p.m. on Thursday, January 25, 2018

President Trump will propose a pathway to citizenship for 1.8 million illegal immigrant Dreamers, nearly tripling the Obama-era DACA program, the White House said Thursday.

Mr. Trump’s vision, which he will submit to Congress next week, would grant legal status to fewer than the 3 million people under the plan Senate Democrats have backed. But the number of people is far higher than the 690,000 in the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program.

White House officials said they felt they had to go that far in order to demand major changes on the security side, including an end to catch-and-release of illegal immigrants snared at the border, faster deportations for those caught overstaying their visas inside the U.S. and $25 billion for Mr. Trump’s wall.

The president also will demand strict limits on the chain of family migration across the board — not just for newly legalized Dreamers.

He would allow immigrants to petition for spouses and minor children but would eliminate parents, siblings and adult children from chain migration. Extended family already in the backlog would be allowed to enter, but no further applications would be accepted.

The combination of legalization and security puts Mr. Trump squarely in the middle of the immigration debate, between Democrats who want a more generous amnesty and House Republicans who opposed citizenship and were instead pushing a massive package of security changes.

“As part of this effort to ensure there is full bipartisan support for this package, we believe the total number that will be able to apply for legal status … will be a population of individuals of 1.8 million people,” a senior White House official said.

The official said Mr. Trump wouldn’t agree to a deal on Dreamers without the border security, enforcement and policy changes.

“This is kind of a bottom line for the president,” another official told reporters at the White House.

The plan calls for a $25 billion trust fund to build Mr. Trump’s border wall and other infrastructure. That would ensure a future Congress couldn’t withhold the money.

Mr. Obama supported a path to citizenship for Dreamers but was unable to get that legislation through Congress, which was why his administration circumvented Capitol Hill to create the DACA program.

Begun in 2012, the program approved some 800,000 people for renewable two-year permits granting them a stay of deportation and authority to work in the U.S. Of those people, some 690,000 were still protected under DACA as of late last year.

Of the additional 1.1 million people Mr. Trump would enroll, about 600,000 were eligible for DACA but, for various reasons, didn’t apply, and 500,000 or so who would be admitted under adjusted timelines.

The White House called the 1.8 million “a dramatic concession by the White House to get to 60 votes in the Senate.”

It would take the immigrants 10 to 12 years to earn citizenship.

Sen. Ted Cruz, Texas Republican, said the president had embraced an amnesty that even President Obama was denied.

“I do not believe we should be granting a path to citizenship to anybody here illegally,” he said. “All of these proposals being floated that have a path to citizenship for DACA recipients are markedly to the left of where President Obama was. DACA itself has no path to citizenship under President Obama’s illegal executive amnesty.”

Democrats remained skeptical of Mr. Trump’s support for citizenship, which he announced to reporters on Wednesday.

“What he says on Tuesday is not necessarily what he says on Thursday,” said Sen. Ron Wyden of Oregon, the top Democrat on the Senate Finance Committee.

Other Democrats said Mr. Trump’s calculus of a trade of Dreamers for the wall was still unacceptable.

“I do not support border wall funding,” said Sen. Cory A. Booker, New Jersey Democrat.

He said he was holding out hope that Dreamers could get citizenship without a wall.

“I’m a prisoner of hope, but that does not mean I have some Pollyannaish view that this is going to work out,” said Mr. Booker. “Hope is work, hope is sacrifice, so we are going to fight this.”

Still, Sen. Michael F. Bennet, Colorado Democrat, said the president’s move toward citizenship for Dreamers was encouraging.

“I think there is a general consensus among people working on this that a pathway has to be part of it,” he said.

The White House plan could undercut efforts by House conservatives, who back a much tougher security plan. That would grant the 690,000 people under DACA a new legal status of three-year work permits, approved by Congress, in exchange for mandatory use of E-Verify for employers to check work status, curtailing abuse of the asylum system, cracking down on sanctuary cities and punishing repeat illegal immigrants.

The White House said it envisioned Mr. Trump’s plan as the basis for Senate negotiations but expected the House to pass its own bill.

“We’re not trying to force something on the House at this point. I think the House has got its own independent process,” an adviser said.

The White House said the president’s plan would boost security at the northern border as well, which could entice senators in Montana, North Dakota and Minnesota who are calling for attention to the U.S.-Canada line.

Mr. Trump’s plan would cancel the Diversity Visa Lottery, which gives 50,000 visas per year based on chance. Those visas would be recaptured and used to reduce the backlog in merit-based migration.

The president also asked Congress to allow faster deportations for those who overstay their visitors’ visas, who could account for half of all new illegal immigration.

Mr. Trump said Congress must change the laws to help end the catch-and-release policy that applies to countries other than Mexico and Canada who cannot be quickly turned back home.

Under the current system, migrants who cannot be detained are released with the hope that they will return for their deportation hearings. They rarely do.

The White House said it had dozens of other enforcement changes it could have demanded, such as E-Verify, but it would pursue those later.

“This is the first bite,” said a White House official. “There is a second phase to this. There are 11 million people who live here illegally.”

The plan is unlikely to please activists on either side of the debate.

Indeed, immigrant rights groups were skeptical even after Mr. Trump said he would support full citizenship rights.

Frank Sharry, executive director of America’s Voice, called it “a spoonful of sugar before the bitter medicine of Trump’s far-reaching nativist agenda.”

“No way. We won’t stand for it,” he said. “They don’t get to exploit a crisis they created to take a wrecking ball to the Statue of Liberty.”

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/jan/25/trump-amnesty-cover-18-million-dreamers/

 

Trump Proposes Citizenship for Dreamers in Exchange for Wall, Other Concessions

Administration also looking to restrict family-based immigration and hiring more border agents, immigration judges and prosecutors

Immigrant rights groups rallied on Thursday in Hartford, Conn., as lawmakers in Washington negotiated an immigration deal.
Immigrant rights groups rallied on Thursday in Hartford, Conn., as lawmakers in Washington negotiated an immigration deal. PHOTO: JOHN MOORE/GETTY IMAGES

WASHINGTON—President Donald Trump proposed a path to citizenship for 1.8 million undocumented immigrants brought to the U.S. as children, if lawmakers agree to create a $25 billion fund to expand barriers along the Mexico border and make other changes to the immigration system.

The proposal, presented to Senate leaders on Thursday, would additionally restrict family-based immigration, which is the channel by which most immigrants have come to the U.S. for the past 50 years. The White House plan also calls for an end to a lottery-type program that randomly awards 50,000 visas annually to foreigners.

Mr. Trump was in Davos, Switzerland, for the World Economic Forum on Thursday. But his top aides told Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell that the president would sign into law legislation that included these changes. The Republican leader responded that he intended to bring such a bill to a vote during the week of Feb. 5, White House officials said.

It wasn’t immediately clear whether Mr. McConnell could find enough support for such a measure. Passage needs a total of 60 votes in the Senate that will require backing from Republicans, who hold 51 seats, and some Democrats.

And White House officials on Thursday acknowledged that approval was an even bigger question in the House, where a small but powerful wing of conservative Republicans can—and often do—prevent their party from acting without help from Democrats.

The biggest question Thursday was how conservatives will react to Mr. Trump’s support for citizenship for the Dreamers, who were shielded from deportation by actions taken by former President Barack Obama. About 700,000 immigrants registered for that program, known as Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals.

Mr. Trump’s plan would protect those people, plus others who would otherwise qualify. That brings the total to about 1.8 million people who could become citizens within 10 to 12 years, White House officials said.

“This represents a dramatic concession by the White House to get to 60 votes from the Senate,” a senior administration official said, describing the bill as a “compromise on many fronts.”

Mr. Trump’s path to citizenship would also include requirements for work, education and “good moral character,” which has long been one of the requirements for naturalization in the U.S. That status could be revoked in the case of criminal conduct, public safety concerns or dependency on the government for subsistence, such as cash assistance.

When the president suggested he would be in favor of a plan late Wednesday before leaving for Davos, the conservative website Breitbart.com ran a headline referring to Mr. Trump as “Amnesty Don.”

But Mr. Trump has long said he was open to protecting Dreamers, and the White House is betting that his supporters will overlook those concessions if he can secure funding for a border wall. While Mr. Trump promised voters he would make Mexico pay for the wall, his plan instead asks Congress to find $25 billion for a trust fund that future lawmakers couldn’t divert to other programs.

The total price tag on Mr. Trump’s plan for border security—along both the southern and northern border—would cost billions more, White House officials said. Asked if it would cost another $5 billion, one White house official said that amount was “in the ballpark.”

Additional border security measures the president is seeking include standardizing treatment of undocumented immigrants, regardless of country of origin; expediting removal of those who overstayed their visa; and hiring additional border agents, immigration judges, and prosecutors.

“A expeditious removal process is going to be a huge deterrent for new people coming in illegally, which will many, many, many lives,” a senior administration official said. “Once people see there is predictability in the system, they will stop coming in illegally.”

On family-based immigration, Mr. Trump’s plan would restrict so-called chain migration to only spouses and minor children. The administration argues that successive rounds of family-based admissions tilts the immigrant pool away from young, skilled workers best equipped to prosper and assimilate.

Those who have already applied for family-based immigration would be allowed to continue through the process, under Mr. Trump’s plan.

Some of that backlog would be cleared by using slots from the Diversity Visa Lottery. The president called for an end to the process, a marginal visa program once tied to efforts to help Irish migrants, after it was used by the man accused of driving a rented truck through a crowd of cyclists and pedestrian in New York City.

Ending the program would also free up visas to be used for skilled migrants, a White House official said.

“The president campaigned pretty hard on immigration—this is something he’s given on,” a senior White House official said, calling the proposal, “kind of a bottom line for the president.”

https://www.wsj.com/articles/democrats-try-to-narrow-focus-of-an-immigration-deal-1516903971

End Chain Migration

 

Chain Migration refers to the endless chains of foreign nationals who are allowed to immigrate to the United States because citizens and lawful permanent residents are allowed to sponsor their non-nuclear family members.

It is the primary mechanism that has caused legal immigration in the U.S. to quadruple from about 250,000 per year in the 1950s and 1960s to more than 1 million annually since 1990. As such, it is one of the chief culprits in America’s current record-breaking population boom and all the attendant sprawl, congestion, and school overcrowding that damage Americans’ quality of life.

HOW CHAIN MIGRATION WORKS

 

Chain Migration starts with a foreign citizen chosen by our government to be admitted on the basis of what he/she is supposed to offer in our national interest. The Original Immigrant is allowed to bring in his/her nuclear family consisting of a spouse and minor children. After that, the chain begins. Once the Original Immigrant and his/her spouse becomes a U.S. citizen, they can petition for their parents, adult sons/daughters and their spouses and children, and their adult siblings.

The Family-Chain categories are divided into four separate preferences:

  • 1st Preference: Unmarried sons/daughters of U.S. citizens and their children (capped at 23,400/year)
  • 2nd Preference: Spouses, children, and unmarried sons/daughters of green card holders (capped at 114,000/year)
  • 3rd Preference: Married sons/daughters of U.S. citizens and their spouses and children (capped at 23,400/year)
  • 4th Preference: Brothers/sisters of U.S. citizens (at least 21 years of age) and their spouses and children (capped at (65,000/year)

CHAIN MIGRATION LEADS TO ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION

 

Due to Chain Migration, distant relatives of original immigrants may come to see immigration as a right or entitlement. When they realize that they may, in fact, have to wait years for a visa to become available because of annual caps and per-country limits on several of the family-based immigration categories, many decide to come illegally while they wait for their turn.

According to recent Visa Bulletins prepared by the U.S. Department of State, green cards are currently being issued to Philippino-born adult brothers and sisters of U.S. citizens (the fourth preference under the family-sponsored categories) who first filed their green card applications in the early-1990s. While these adult family members are guaranteed green cards under current law, the wait time is so long, these family members instead choose to come to the United States and remain here illegally until their green card becomes available. In fact, the long wait times created by Chain Migration was one factor leading to Congress’ decision to increase the annual caps on legal immigration in 1990.

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF CHAIN MIGRATION

 

Immigration Act of 1924 — Congress exempted spouses and unmarried adult children between 18-21 from per-country quotas

Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 — Congress created chain categories for parents, adult children, and adult siblings in a limited number of countries. Highly-educated or skilled immigrants, however, received priority.

Immigration Act of 1965 (Hart-Celler Act) — Congress extended the chains to every country of the world and reversed the priority so that the chain categories had preference over skill categories.

Immigration Act of 1990 — Congress raised the caps on chain categories.

The 1952 Immigration and Nationality Act established a four-category selection system for countries in the Eastern Hemisphere (Northern and Western Europe were heavily favored). As in the past, the Western Hemisphere was not subject to numerical limitations. The first preference, accounting for 50 percent of all green cards issues, went to skilled immigrants. The next three categories were divided among specified relatives of U.S. citizens and permanent resident aliens.

  • 30 percent were made available to parents of U.S. citizens aged 21 or older.
  • 20 percent were made available to the spouses and children of lawful permanent residents.
  • Unused visas (capped at 25 percent per country) were made available to adult siblings and adult children of U.S. citizens.

From “A Brief History of U.S. Immigration Policy” by Joyce Vialet, Congressional Research Service, December 22, 1980:

Although U.S. immigration policy incorporated family relationships as a basis for admitting immigrants as early as the 1920s, the promotion of family reunification found in current law originated with the passage of the 1952 Immigration and Nationality Act (INA, P.L. 82-414). While the 1952 act largely retained the national origins quota system established in the Immigration Act of 1924, it also established a hierarchy of family-based preferences that continues to govern contemporary U.S. immigration policy today, including prioritizing spouses and minor children over other relatives and relatives of U.S. citizens over those of lawful permanent residents (LPRs).

Immigration numbers soared during the second half of the 1950s and early-1960s, with more than half of all immigration coming from the Western Hemisphere which was not subject to numerical limitations. According to the Congressional Research Service:

The gradual recognition that the national origins quota system was not functioning effectively as a means of regulating immigration was an important factor leading to the major policy revision which came in 1965.

The 1965 Immigration and Nationality Act made two significant changes that, in combination with the chain categories, doubled immigration over the next 25 years.

  • Revised the means by which immigration was regulated by replacing the national origin quotas with annual limits:
    • 170,000 annual limit for the Eastern Hemisphere
      • 20,000 per country
    • 120,000 annual limit for the Western Hemisphere
      • 20,000 per country (added in 1976)
  • Reversed the priority system for the Eastern Hemisphere so the chain categories gained preference over education and skills.
    • Amendments in 1976 applied the preference system to the Western Hemisphere as well.

In 1976, Congress amended the 1965 bill by reversing the priority system — family-sponsored then employment-based — for both the Eastern and Western Hemispheres. Then, In 1978, Congress ended the per-county limits and replaced them with a single worldwide cap of 290,000. Through passage of the Refugee Act of 1980, Congress reduced the worldwide cap to 270,000, but removed Refugees as a preference.

The 1990 Immigration Act raised the annual caps on these chain categories in bold (P.L. 101-649, Section 111):

  • unlimited for parents of adult U.S. citizens
  • 23,400 for unmarried adult children of citizens
  • 114,200 for spouses and minor children of legal permanent residents; and unmarried adult children of LPRs (with 77% reserved for spouses and minor children)
  • 23,400 for married children of citizens
  • 65,000 for adult siblings of citizens age 21 and over

THE SOLUTION: RAISE ACT

 

The Immigration Act of 1990 called for a bi-partisan commission to “review and evaluate the impact of this Act and the amendments made by this Act” and to issue findings and recommendations on (among other things) the “impact of immigration…on labor needs, employment, and other economic and domestic conditions in the United States.”

The commission, chaired by Barbara Jordan, recommended the elimination of the chain migration categories.

“Unless there is a compelling national interest to do otherwise, immigrants should be chosen on the basis of the skills they contribute to the U.S. economy. The Commission believes that admission of nuclear family members and refugees provide such a compelling national interest, even if they are low-skilled. Reunification of adult children and siblings of adult citizens solely because of their family relationship is not as compelling.” – Barbara Jordan, June 28, 1995

Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.) introduced legislation that would end Chain Migration based on the Jordan Commission’s recommendations – the Reforming American Immigration for Strong Employment (RAISE) Act (S. 354). The bill would reduce legal immigration by up to 50% by ending future chain migration and the diversity visa lottery.

https://www.numbersusa.com/solutions/end-chain-migration

Story 2: President Trump Woos World Leaders To Invest in America at World Economic Forum (WEF) in Davos Global Gathering of Corporate and Political Establishment Elitists — Videos

The Ingraham Angle 1/25/18 With Laura Ingraham | The Ingraham Angle Fox News January 25, 2018

Trump arrives in Davos

Trump meets with Theresa May in Davos

Trump threatens to cut off aid to Palestinians

INVESTING IN AMERICA: President Trump Speaks To World Leaders in Davos

President Trump has dinner with European Business Leaders. Davos. World Economic Forum. Jan 25, 2018

President Donald Trump In Davos For World Economic Forum | NBC News

Davos Notebook: Here’s why Trump is at the World Economic Forum

🔴 LIVE: President Trump at DAVOS World Economic Forum 2018 Switzerland

What is Davos?

What is Davos? | CNBC Explains

World Economic Forum opens in Davos

Who’s attending WEF 2018? | Business Today

We want peace and prosperity’ says Trump as he storms Davos with offers of better trade deals and pleas for big business to invest in America

  • President Donald Trump has arrived to Switzerland to participate in the Davos economic conference 
  • Members of his cabinet arrived in advance and joined in panels and interviews 
  • He told reporters, ‘We want great prosperity and we want great peace’
  • He will push his ‘America First’ agenda and seek more fair, reciprocal trade between the US and its allies
  • ‘America first is not America alone,’ said White House senior economic adviser Gary Cohn
  • Trump met British Prime Minister Theresa May after canceling a visit to the UK earlier this month
  • The president and Prime Minster shook hands after reaffirming the ‘Special Relationship’ between the nations
  • Trump said that he would ‘fight’ for Britain and said that any rumors of a fracture in relations were false 
  • Met with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu who thanked Trump for recognizing Jerusalem as capital
  • He will also attend a reception the White House has said will be held in his honor and meets with CEOs
  • Trump said before departing that he was ‘looking forward’ to speaking to special counsel Robert Mueller
  • Trump, never invited as a businessman, will be the first president to attend Davos since Bill Clinton in 2000
  • The president was not accompanied by his wife Melania, who pulled out of the trip on short notice following allegations that he had an affair with a porn star

‘I think the real message is we want great prosperity and we want great peace,’ Trump said after holding back-to-back meetings with British Prime Minister Theresa May and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

 ‘And I think that really is the message,’ Trump told pool reporters who trailed him at each scheduled meeting at the gathering of bigwigs in the snowy Alpine town.

Trump also renewed his public pitch for investors to pour money into the U.S. ‘It’s been going really well. A lot of people are coming back to the United States. We are seeing tremendous investment,’ he said. ‘And today’s been a very exciting day, very great day and great for our country.

Trump landed on Thursday in Switzerland, where his outsized personality and determination to push an ‘America First’ agenda was upending the annual Davos conference.

To an extent, the annual confab of billionaires and CEOs was centering around Trump even before Air Force One touched down in Zurich, then flew aboard Marine One to Davos in the Swiss Alps.

President Donald Trump says he’s bringing a message of “peace and prosperity” to an annual economic summit in the Swiss Alps

The approximately 40-minute trip took Trump over a snowy countryside dotted with houses, frosted mountains and a glistening lake.

As Trump got off the helicopter in Davos, he gestured to aides who held him by the arms as he walked across the snowy landing zone to his waiting car.

‘We’re very happy to be here,’ Trump said as he arrived. ‘The United States is doing very well, and will continue to do well and this will be a very exciting two days.’

Trump waved to a bank of cameras when he arrived, before being immediately whisked away to the annual gathering of heads of state and business leaders where he had a one-on-one meeting with May.

He then had a meeting with Netanyahu, where the two reaffirmed the historic decision by the United States to recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, and Trump blasted Palestinian leaders for ‘disrespecting’ the U.S.

Before the arrival of Trump it was German Chancellor Angela Merkel who got most of the press as she took on isolationism and protectionism in her remarks here Wednesday, while French President Emmanuel Macron took a dig at Trump over global warming.

Trump’s advisers have said that he will give a full-throated defense of his ‘America First’ policies in a Friday speech, at a time when the conference is wrapping up.

The president was not accompanied by his wife Melania, who pulled out of the trip at short notice following allegations that he had an affair with a porn star.

While the president is expected to declare that the United States is open for business, the protectionist-leaning president’s attendance at the annual gathering for free-trade-loving political and business elites has raised eyebrows.

Security was stepped up 

A squadron of helicopters swooped out of a red morning sky and into Zurich airport on Thursday morning ahead of the arrival of President Trump, who was due to stop there before moving on to Davos

President Donald Trump landed Thursday in Switzerland, where his 'America First' agenda is already upending Davos

President Donald Trump landed Thursday in Switzerland, where his ‘America First’ agenda is already upending Davos

President Trump's helicopter touching down in Davos

President Trump leaving his Marine One helicopter in Davos

The President’s ‘Marine One’ helicopter touched down at Davos after taking him to the ski resort from Zurich airport

The president was not accompanied by his wife Melania, who pulled out of the trip at short notice following allegations that he had an affair with a porn star.

The president was not accompanied by his wife Melania, who pulled out of the trip at short notice following allegations that he had an affair with a porn star.

Marine One carrying US President Donald Trump lands at the heliport during Trump's arrival at the annual meeting of the World Economic Forum

Marine One carrying US President Donald Trump lands at the heliport during Trump’s arrival at the annual meeting of the World Economic Forum

Marine One carrying US President Donald Trump lands at the heliport prior to the economic conference in Davos

The president's motorcade then made its way through the streets of the town after his helicopter touched down

President Donald Trump is trying to dispel the perception that he and British Prime Minister Theresa May don’t get along

His decision to sign new tariffs boosting American manufacturers this week has prompted fresh concerns about his nationalist tendencies.

Trump also seemed eager to dispel concerns about his global leadership.

‘WE LOVE YOU’: TRUMP GREETS MAY IN DAVOS

Donald Trump vowed to ‘fight for’ Britain today as he and Theresa May put on a gushing show of unity in a bid to kill concerns about the state of the Special Relationship.

The US president stressed the warmth of ties as he met the Prime Minister for talks at the World Economic Forum in Davos, saying they ‘respect each other a lot’ and were on the ‘same wavelength’.

As Mrs May nodded in agreement, Mr Trump said he wanted to correct ‘false rumours’ that they did not get on.

‘I think the feeling is mutual from the standpoint of liking each other a lot,’ he said. ‘We love your country.’

He added: ‘There is nothing that would happen to you that we wont be there to fight for you – you know that.’

Mrs May replied: ‘As you say we had a great discussion today and we continue to have that really special relationship with the United States.

‘We stand shoulder to shoulder because we face the same challenges around the world.’

The effusive praise came despite claims of rising tensions, with reports Mr Trump keeps interrupting the PM on the phone and his state visit invite has turned into a ‘nightmare’. There was an extraordinary public row last year after Mr Trump retweeted anti-Muslim posts by a British Far Right group.

As the leaders sat awkwardly next to each other for photographs this afternoon, they said they would be ‘talking about’ the state visit.

During his meeting with May, Trump said the two leaders have a ‘really great relationship, although some people don’t necessarily believe that.’ He said it was a ‘false rumor’ that the relationship was strained and that he wanted to ‘correct it.’

‘We are very much joined at the hip when it comes to the military. We have the same ideas, the same ideals, and there’s nothing that would happen to you that we won’t be there to fight for you,’ he told May. ‘You know that.’

Trump hosted May at the White House days after he took office.

But he recently canceled a planned trip to London to celebrate the opening of the new U.S. embassy.

And last year, Trump and May traded criticism over his retweets of a far-right group’s anti-Muslim videos.

Britain is eager to strike a free trade deal with the U.S. after it leaves the EU in 2019.

And during his meeting with Netanyahu, Trump said that Palestinians must return to peace talks with Israel in order to receive US aid money.

Trump’s decision last year to recognize Jerusalem as Israel’s capital roiled Arab nations and led Palestinians to refuse to meet with Vice President Mike Pence during his visit to the Mideast this week. Palestinians also declared a new U.S.-led peace push dead, saying Washington can no longer be an honest broker.

Trump says U.S. aid to the Palestinians is ‘on the table’ but they won’t get it ‘unless they sit down and negotiate peace.’

Trump commented as he opened a meeting with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu during an economic summit in Davos, Switzerland.

Netanyahu praised Trump’s decision to recognize Jerusalem as Israel’s capital and to move the U.S. Embassy there from Tel Aviv.

U.S. Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin said Thursday that U.S. is ready to negotiate an ‘attractive’ trade deal with Britain once the country has left the European Union.

Trump’s ‘America First’ agenda and aversion to multilateral trade agreements would seem at odds with a global summit that stresses free trade and international cooperation.

But U.S. Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin got to Davos ahead of Trump and insisted Wednesday that the United States supports free trade.

‘America First’ does mean working with the rest of the world,’ said Mnuchin, who is leading the largest U.S. delegation ever to attend the exclusive gathering. ‘It just means that President Trump is looking out for American workers and American interests, no different than he expects other leaders would look out for their own.’

No hard feelings: U.S. President Donald Trump shakes hands with Theresa May during their meeting on Thursday in Davos

U.S. Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross argued that new U.S. tariffs on imported solar-energy components and large washing machines are meant to deal with ‘inappropriate behavior’ by other countries and are not protectionist. Still, Ross conceded that China could respond by imposing its own tariffs on U.S. products.

As he signed the tariffs, Trump said he was heading to Davos to talk ‘about investing in the United States again.’

The president is set to address the forum Friday. He is expected to showcase the booming U.S. economy and measures like his recent tax overhaul, claiming that a thriving America benefits the world. A vocal critic of trade deals he sees as unfair to the United States, Trump will also stress the need for what he sees as fair competition.

The president has criticized global pacts, withdrawing from the Trans-Pacific Partnership on trade, demanding changes to the North American Free Trade Agreement and announcing his intent to exit the Paris climate accord.

In the lead-up to Trump’s arrival, other leaders at the meeting have argued against any drift toward protectionism in the global economy. Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi said new barriers to trade could pose a danger on a par with climate change and extremist attacks. And Canada’s Justin Trudeau revealed that his country and the 10 remaining members of the Trans-Pacific Partnership have revised their trade deal following the U.S. withdrawal.

During his stay in Switzerland, Trump is also planning to hobnob with other world leaders at a reception the White House said is being held in his honor. He’ll also court European business leaders to try to persuade them to invest in the U.S.

But it was Trump’s unexpected comments about Robert Mueller’s Russia probe that made headlines as he took off for Europe.

‘I’m looking forward to it, actually,’ Trump, told reporters in a surprise press availability in the White House. ‘I would do it under oath,’ he said.

DAVOS: WHERE THE WORLD’S MOST POWERFUL MEET

Every year the world’s political and business leaders are joined by a sprinkling of celebrities gather in Davos for the annual meeting of the World Economic Forum (WEF).

The Swiss resort town has become shorthand for the meeting, which grew from a small group hosted by German academic Klaus Schwab to an event attended by more than 3,000 participants.

President Donald Trump meets with British Prime Minister Theresa May at the World Economic Forum

President Donald Trump meets with British Prime Minister Theresa May at the World Economic Forum

The WEF describes itself as ‘International Organization for Public-Private Cooperation’ and was founded by economist and engineer Schwab in 1971, the year of the first Davos meeting,

Schwab’s vision was for a body that gave leaders from the world of business and government a chance bring their respective abilities together to spark ideas for solving the world’s economic and social problems.

Politicians themselves were first invited in 1974 and two years later the WEF introduced a membership system for businesses.

The WEF boasts that at Davos, Greece and Turkey held talks to avoid war, East and West Germany discussed unification and North and South Korea held their first ever ministerial meetings.

By and large, though, the summit consists of a lot of meetings where ideas are discussed, which are open to the public.

There are also meetings restricted to paying attendees and also a good deal of behind the scenes deal making.

Companies lay on plenty of food and drink laid to encourage networking among the 900 chief executives and 70 odd world leaders while bands, including in the past The Killers, are on hand to provide entertainment.

For participants, the day often starts with a breakfast invite for 7am and there are parties that last until in the early hours.

To get an invite to Davos you’ll probably have to be a world leader or chief executive and if not then running a socially minded company or NGO.

Or you can get your company to pay 27,000 Swiss francs ($29,000) plus membership of the World Economic Forum and a very expensive hotel.

Trump’s posture – wary of global pacts to fight climate change and blasting global trade deals as a ‘ripoff’ to the U.S. – as adverse to some of the overall sentiment at an event that brings celebrities, U.S. politicians and operatives from both parties, and leaders from around the world together.

The theme of the 2018 conference is ‘Creating a Shared Future in a Fractured World.’

First Lady Melania Trump did not accompany her husband on the trip. Her office cited logistical issues, and Trump did not announce his own intention to visit until weeks before the event began, leaving staff scrambling to find accommodations for the president’s retinue.

Trump's advisors have forecast that he will give a full-throated defense of his 'America First' policies in a Friday speech, at a time when the conference is wrapping up 

Trump’s advisors have forecast that he will give a full-throated defense of his ‘America First’ policies in a Friday speech, at a time when the conference is wrapping up

Other than a trip to Mar-a-Lago, the first lady has not been seen with the president since a Wall Street Journal report that Trump personal lawyer Michael Cohen paid $130,000 to adult film star Stormy Daniels just weeks before the 2016 campaign as part of a nondisclosure agreement. Daniels said in previous interviews that have since been published that she had a sexual affair with the president – something Trump denies.

Macron, who is getting a state visit to the U.S. in a high honor, rapped Trump in his opening remarks here.

‘When you arrive here and see the snow, it could be hard to believe in global warming,’ he joked. ‘Obviously you don’t invite anyone skeptical about global warming this year.’

Trump previewed how he would herald the U.S. in a tweet shortly before he took off.

am doing, will only get better…Our country is finally WINNING again!’ he wrote.

Trump’s Commerce secretary, Wilbur Ross, has warned new U.S. trade actions could be coming.

But Alibaba CEO Jack Ma warned here: ‘Don’t use trade as a weapon.’ He added: ‘It’s so easy to launch a trade war, but it’s so difficult to stop the disaster of this war.’

Security at the secretive mountain resort of Davos was ramped up on Thursday morning ahead of the arrival of President Trump.

A tight operation was also in place in Zurich, where the President was due to stop briefly before being ferried to Davos, with heavily armoured police vehicles guarding the tarmac.

Helicopters swooped low out of a red morning sky like a scene from Vietnam war film Apocalypse Now ahead of the President’s arrival.

Trump boarded Marine One out of Washington on Wednesday evening and was expected to arrive in Zurich by mid-morning Thursday, before being ferried to Davos.

US helicopters stop to refuel at Zurich airport before escorting Trump to Davos, where he is due to spend the next two days speaking with world and business leaders

US helicopters stop to refuel at Zurich airport before escorting Trump to Davos, where he is due to spend the next two days speaking with world and business leaders

In Davos itself security was also being stepped up, with snipers positioned on rooftops around the ski resort 

A Swiss Army helicopter patrols the skies above Davos, where the World Economic Forum is being held this week

A Swiss Army helicopter patrols the skies above Davos, where the World Economic Forum is being held this week

First Lady Melania Trump did not accompany her husband to Davos, due to 'scheduling and logistical issues,' according to her office

First Lady Melania Trump did not accompany her husband to Davos, due to ‘scheduling and logistical issues,’ according to her office

He will spend two days mingling among the ‘globalists’ he spent much of the 2016 election campaign trashing, before delivering a speech on Friday.

The President is expected to push his America First agenda and seek more fair, reciprocal trade deals with allies, having bemoaned chronic trade deficits with many of them in the past.

‘America first is not America alone,’ said White House senior economic adviser Gary Cohn, who is traveling with Trump. ‘When we grow, the world grows; when the world grows, we grow. We’re part of it, and we’re part of a world economy. And the president believes that.’

Trump, never invited as a businessman, will be the first U.S. president to attend Davos since Bill Clinton in 2000.

In the run-up to his trip to Davos, Trump slapped a 30 per cent tariff on imported solar panels, among the first unilateral trade restrictions imposed by the administration as part of a broader protectionist agenda.

Then on Wednesday in Davos, U.S. Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin said he welcomed a weakening in the dollar. Fears of protectionist trade policies by the United States had already pushed the greenback to a three-year low, and Mnuchin’s remark pushed it down further.

Trump will use his trip for some diplomacy. In addition to the meetings with British Prime Minister Theresa May and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Thursday, the president will see Rwandan President Paul Kagame, current chairman of the African Union, and Swiss President Alain Berset on Friday.

Iran’s growing influence in the Middle East, North Korea’s nuclear challenge and the battle against Islamic State militants figured to be prominent topics of his meetings.

French President Emmanuel Macron told RTS channel that he had ‘strongly recommended’ to Trump to attend the Davos forum during a recent phone conversation they had on Iran … ‘because I think it’s a good thing for President Trump to explain his strategy for the U.S. and the world here in Davos.

‘And that he encounters some form of confrontation and dialogue,’ Macron said.

Trump will host a small dinner for European business executives on Thursday night.

There is broad concern in European capitals that 2018 could be the year Trump’s bark on trade turns into bite, as he considers punitive measures on steel and threatens to end the 90s-era North American Free Trade Agreement with Canada and Mexico.

Trump will appeal for increased global investment in the United States to take advantage of corporate tax cuts approved by Congress late in 2017 and Trump’s deregulatory policies.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5311077/Security-beefed-Davos-ahead-Trumps-arrival.html#ixzz55Foh1prV

World Economic Forum

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
World Economic Forum
World Economic Forum headquarters (cropped).jpg

Headquarters in Cologny (Switzerland).
World Economic Forum logo.svg
Motto Committed to improving the state of the world
Formation 1971; 47 years ago
Founder Klaus Schwab
Type Nonprofit organization
Legal status Foundation
Purpose Economic[vague]
Headquarters Cologny, Switzerland
Region served
Worldwide
Official language
English
Klaus Schwab
Website www.weforum.org
Formerly called
European Management Forum

The World Economic Forum (WEF) is a Swiss nonprofit foundation, based in ColognyGenevaSwitzerland. Recognized by the Swiss authorities as an international body,[1] its mission is cited as “committed to improving the state of the world by engaging business, political, academic, and other leaders of society to shape global, regional, and industry agendas”.

The forum is best known for its annual meeting at the end of January in Davos, a mountain resort in Graubünden, in the eastern Alps region of Switzerland. The meeting brings together some 2,500 top business leaders, international political leaders, economists, celebrities and journalists for up to four days to discuss the most pressing issues facing the world. Often this location alone is used to identify meetings, participation, and participants with such phrases as, “a Davos panel” and “a Davos Man”.[2]

The organization also convenes some six to eight regional meetings each year in locations across Africa, East Asia, and Latin America, and holds two further annual meetings in China, India and the United Arab Emirates. Beside meetings, the foundation produces a series of research reports and engages its members in sector-specific initiatives.[3]

History

Professor Klaus Schwab opens the inaugural European Management Forum in Davos in 1971.

F. W. de Klerk and Nelson Mandelashake hands at the annual meeting of the World Economic Forum held in Davos in January 1992

Naoto Kan, then Japanese prime minister gives a special message at the World Economic Forum Annual Meeting 2011

Klaus Schwab, founder and executive chairman, World Economic Forum

Carlos Ghosn, the chairman and CEO of RenaultNissanRenault-Nissan Alliance and the Chairman of AvtoVAZ

The forum was founded in 1971 by Klaus Schwab, a German-born business professor at the University of Geneva.[4] First named the “European Management Forum”, it changed its name to the World Economic Forum in 1987 and sought to broaden its vision to include providing a platform for resolving international conflicts.

In the summer of 1971, Schwab invited 444 executives from Western European firms to the first European Management Symposium held in the Davos Congress Centre under the patronage of the European Commission and European industrial associations, where Schwab sought to introduce European firms to American management practices. He then founded the WEF as a nonprofit organization based in Geneva and drew European business leaders to Davos for the annual meetings each January.[5]

Schwab developed the “stakeholder” management approach, which attributed corporate success to managers actively taking account of all interests: not merely shareholders, clients, and customers, but also employees and the communities within which the firm is situated, including governments.[6] Events in 1973, including the collapse of the Bretton Woods fixed-exchange rate mechanism and the Arab–Israeli War, saw the annual meeting expand its focus from management to economic and social issues, and, for the first time political leaders were invited to the annual meeting in January 1974.[7]

Political leaders soon began to use the annual meeting as a neutral platform. The Davos Declaration was signed in 1988 by Greece and Turkey, helping them turn back from the brink of war. In 1992, South African President F. W. de Klerk met with Nelson Mandela and Chief Mangosuthu Buthelezi at the annual meeting, their first joint appearance outside South Africa. At the 1994 annual meeting, Israeli Foreign Minister Shimon Peres and PLO chairmanYasser Arafat reached a draft agreement on Gaza and Jericho.[8]

In late 2015, the invitation was extended to include a North Korean delegation for the 2016 forum, “in view of positive signs coming out of the country,” the WEF organizers noted. North Korea has not been attending the WEF since 1998. The invitation was accepted but after the January 2016 North Korean nuclear test on 6 January, the invitation was revoked, and the country’s delegation was made subject to “existing and possible forthcoming sanctions.”[9]Despite protests by North Korea calling the decision by the WEF managing board a “sudden and irresponsible” move, the WEF committee maintained the exclusion because “under these circumstances there would be no opportunity for international dialogue.”[10]

In 2017, the World Economic Forum in Davos attracted considerable attention when for the first time, a head of state from the People’s Republic of China was present at the alpine resort. With the backdrop of Brexit, an incoming protectionist US administration and significant pressures on free trade zones and trade agreements, President Xi Jinping defended the global economic scheme, and portrayed China as a responsible nation and a leader for environmental causes. He sharply rebuked the current populist movements that would introduce tariffs and hinder global commerce, warning that such protectionism could foster isolation and reduced economic opportunity.[11]

Organization

Headquartered in Cologny, the forum also has offices in New York, Beijing and Tokyo. On October 10, 2016, the Forum announced the opening of its new Center for the Fourth Industrial Revolution in San Francisco. According to the Forum, the center will “serve as a platform for interaction, insight and impact on the scientific and technological changes that are changing the way we live, work and relate to one another”.[12]

The World Economic Forum strives to be impartial and is not tied to any political, partisan, or national interests. The foundation is “committed to improving the State of the World”.[13] Until 2012, it had